From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Maus Subject: Re: Re: using orgmode to send html mail? Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:34:13 +0200 Message-ID: <87pr2iwefu.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> References: <878w9krtyn.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <871vfa24qo.fsf@gmail.com> <87pr2uww2d.fsf@columbia.edu> <87tys5zrwm.fsf@gmail.com> <87sk7pzk02.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <87tys5r3q6.fsf@gmail.com> <87ocid7cuj.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <874ok5qxp9.fsf@gmail.com> <87vdckksnj.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <874ok33zje.fsf@gmail.com> <87zl1vf4ru.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <874ok311t9.fsf@gmail.com> <87y6h8tegw.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0305606665==" Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NxcAk-0003Xn-Cs for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:24:10 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60925 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NxcAh-0003Tr-Eh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:24:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NxawB-0000n7-7g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 03:05:52 -0400 Received: from mysql1.xlhost.de ([213.202.242.106]:53179) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nxaw2-0000l4-TF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 03:04:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Vagn Johansen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org --===============0305606665== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr__2_08:34:12_2010-1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr__2_08:34:12_2010-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Vagn Johansen wrote: >David Maus writes: >> Eric Schulte wrote: >[...] >>>I should have been clearer here. I *am* using the multipart/alternative >>>appropriately. When a chunk of org-mode text is converted to html I am >>>adding a single multipart/alternative block with two alternatives, both >>>the plain org-mode text, and the html, so that users like me who prefer >>>to see plain text can do so, and users of web clients like gmail can see >>>nice markup. >[...] >> But I still feel uncomfortable with the current solution: Even if the >> message created by current org-mail-htmlize is a valid MIME message (I >> think so) it is a rather complex MIME structure and I have no idea how >> other MUAs will display such a message. >Complex? That is how most emails are structured today. I cannot not speak of "most emails today" but grepping for the multipart/ entity in my mail archive ranging back to 2003 gives: | multipart entities in message | number of messages | |-------------------------------+--------------------| | 0 | 4208 | | 1 | 3587 | | 2 | 260 | | 3 | 8 | | 4 | 4 | |-------------------------------+--------------------| | total | 8067 | To avoid a misunderstanding: By "complex" I refer to a message that looks like: And is considered to be just one document. It just makes no sense to create such a nested message: If the recipient requires html markup than send him html markup. Why such a nested message? Moreover: Even if this message complies with the specs it is out of their scope. My impression is that current implementation of org-mail-htmlize mixes up two completely different operations: /Creating/ a MIME message and /displaying/ a MIME message. Because it is assumed that a MIME message as given above will be displayed as a single document or message. And this assumption cannot be based on the MIME specs of RFC2045-2049. In RFC2046, p. 23 it is explicitely noted: "Conspicuously missing from the 'multipart' type is a notion of structured, related body parts." The relationship of the message parts in the example above: "We are parts of a single document" is not transmitted. This information is not present at the recipient's side and a MUA is not obliged to display all parts at once to be MIME compliant (cf. RFC2049). And back to the purpose: The whole idea of sending html markup arouse because some recipients require html markup to properly display the transmitted information. To achive this sending the entire plain text as html markup in a single multipart/alternative is sufficient. There is no reason for ripping the original document apart, requiring a certain interpretation of MIME messages on the client side. Rhetoric question: Isn't this mixing up of sending and displaying the problem of users who willingly or unwillingly send html messages only? They implicitely assume that the message will be rendered in the same way on the recipients side as it is rendered for them. Or users who send out MS Word documents, based on their personal experience that everybody they know is capable of displaying .doc files? -- David -- OpenPGP... 0x99ADB83B5A4478E6 Jabber.... dmjena@jabber.org Email..... dmaus@ictsoc.de --pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr__2_08:34:12_2010-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iF4EABEIAAYFAku1j+QACgkQma24O1pEeOZELwEA5gk8wx2KN26qj1LA6Zfq13z9 aiVxpmbxi7IpIy/QDXQBAIxFofMt+cas7V/pa7sPtxqUIfF8umFVm8PpPyY6611A =nYp1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Fri_Apr__2_08:34:12_2010-1-- --===============0305606665== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode --===============0305606665==--