[PATCH]format=flowed
Posted Jun 7, 2007 10:31 UTC (Thu) by
xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
In reply to:
[PATCH]format=flowed by foom
Parent article:
Re: [PATCH -mm] 1/2: MMCONFIG: validate against ACPI motherboard resources
> No, _not_ using format=flowed wreaks havoc upon structured text.
The purpose of format=flowed is to let some paragraphs be
re-wrapped for narrow displays. The intention was that
anything other than a wrappable paragraph would be a
fixed text line and be treated like plain text.
But the inventors in their wisdom decided to fix other
things that also weren't broken (like wrapping of paragraphs
quoted with ">"), and invented "space stuffing":
"On reception, if the first character of a line is a space,
it is logically deleted."
"On generation, any unquoted lines which start with ">", and any
lines which start with a space or "From " MUST be space-stuffed.
Other lines MAY be space-stuffed as desired."
( from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt )
If this 'flowed text' were a separate mime-type, and text
was always converted to and from it consistently (which
requires a given display width and an unambiguous way to
distinguish wrappable paragraphs from "fixed lines"), there
would be no problem. But it's also supposed to be plain
text, and display (and parse!) the same as plain text.
It doesn't, and it can't.
> assume that the receiver also uses a client that
> wasn't written in the dark ages, and thus knows
> about the format=flowed parameter.
Knowing about it and implementing it *correctly* aren't quite the same.
There are so many bugs persisting in eg. Thunderbird (follow
links from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168420)
that when I use the same program as composer and reader,
indentation is messed up *every time*.
As long as anyone on a list is using an MUA which either (a) does
format=flowed *wrong*, like Thunderbird (and many other graphical
mail clients), or (b) doesn't do format=flowed at all, it makes
sense to deprecate it.
> lots of people on OSS mailing lists use clients that don't deal
> with attachments very well either (I guess?), so those are also
> disfavored...
I think the preference for in-line patches is so that they can be
read in-line, and so that the patch and accompanying message can
be saved together as a plain text file which works with 'patch'.
Attachments have an annoying habit of getting silently encoded as
quoted-printable or base64 -- which is almost as annoying as
format=flowed.
The habit of piping raw email messages to patch is compelling.
If format=flowed were implemented sufficiently consistently that
leading spaces were preserved across all MUAs which supported
it, there would be a compelling reason for 'patch' itself to
recognise the format=flowed line and parse the text accordingly.
As long as popular MUAs do it wrong, there is no point trying
to support it at all.
(
Log in to post comments)