On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 05:23:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > No code at all, unless you consider the parameter substitution to be > > code... which I don't. > > But I assume that you're not able to give a mailcap that works under > Mac OS X without a line of code. I guess I really don't care, since I don't use OS X, and have no plans to start any time soon. Even if that's true, it's hardly a deficiency of Mutt... it's a deficiency of Mac OS X for lacking reasonable software for dealing with media types from the command line. If I ever did use OS X, I doubt I would read my mail there. Then again, while there are always exceptions, I tend to save attachments before viewing them anyway, so it's (for me) mostly a moot point. [As a side note, I read my personal mail on a remote server, so mailcap is almost completely irrelevant in that case. I transfer attachments to my local machine, in the exceptionally rare case when I receive something I actually want to look at, since in most cases that's much faster than waiting for remote X clients -- and then I need to transfer the file anyway to work with it. My work mail I do read on my local workstation, and that's where the above applies.] > Also your mailcap is simplistic. In practice, you should test that > DISPLAY is set before starting an X11 client, so that a fallback can > be used. I think I'm perfectly capable of figuring out whether I'm running in X or not... If I'm not in X I probably can't view PDF files anyway, at least not in any useful capacity. Likewise for all the other formats that involve graphics. As I said, the simplistic mailcap works just fine for me. There was a time when I used to try to get fancy with my mailcap, and then I realized I was just wasting time over-engineering solutions to problems which, practically speaking, didn't really exist. I've been using this mailcap, or one extremely similar to it, for around 5 years now -- probably longer -- and have never had a problem viewing attachments. Your assertion that I *need* to write code to support all this is false, and completely absurd, like most of your other points. I don't need to, and have not ever done so. Aside from the aforementioned over-engineering of my mailcap (which was probably at a time when I was using Pine, not Mutt), I have never written code to support my use of Mutt, other than in Mutt's code itself, to fix bugs or feature deficiencies in Mutt. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Or be required to. > > If the problem needs solving, that's Mutt's job. > The flaw is in vi. This is not Mutt's job to fix flaws in other > software. Given that vi is adhering strictly to (at least one revision of) the rather widely accepted and complied-to POSIX standards, that position is completely unsupportable. If mutt is going to continue to be something other than "just another crappy mailer", then Mutt needs to be capable of dealing with standards which are in common usage. I dare say Solaris, and vi on Solaris, are in rather common usage... I won't bother to comment about SCO. Thanks for this mostly pointless debate. I've had enough. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpzJdKUno62A.pgp
Description: PGP signature