From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>,
	Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 0/3] emacs: allow show to colour based on tags and
 flags
In-Reply-To: <87txzw1otb.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
References: <1335739697-8501-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
	<20120429230220.GO2704@mit.edu>
	<87397jwhjp.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87txzw1otb.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+139~g0f7ffba (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 07:22:21 -0700
Message-ID: <877gwsrppe.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 03 2012, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a couple of extra reasons why I like the show ones
> separate. One is that I like to colour headerlines of matching messages to
> highlight them, but in search mode that would highlight every
> line. Secondly, I colour some things "negatively" in show mode: for
> example I show excluded messages in grey. This negative colouring does
> not make sense for search mode because I would only want to grey out
> results where all messages were excluded not results where at least one
> message is excluded. Of course we don't show entirely excluded threads
> in search, but similar comments apply to say the "replied" tag: I could
> show those in green (on the basis they are "dealt with") but I would not
> want a thread coloured green just because I have replied to one message
> in it.

Ok, that makes sense.  Maybe there could be switch to inherit colors,
and then a way to set them independently as well.

>>> BTW, I like how this clearly distinguishes tags and flags.  I wonder
>>> if we could transition to flags for some information that's current
>>> shoe-horned into tags but actually represents immutable information
>>> about a message (attachment, signed, and encrypted or so).
>>
>> Yes!  As Austin probably remembers, we've discussed this before.  I
>> definitely agree that it makes sense to somehow distinguish "immutable"
>> information that is a fundamental, unchanging/able property of the
>> message, and it might be nice to look ahead to that here.
>
> In essence I agree: my only concern is can the user search for these
> immutable things, and what syntax is used there.=20

Well, nothing exists yet so we can define it as we wish, but I would say
absolutely they should be searchable.  That's an important part.  They
just wouldn't be changable, like tags are, since they represent
immutable characteristics of the original message.  I would suggest we
use something like "prop:" (for "property"), e.g. "prop:signed", or
"prop:attachment", etc.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=WLq+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--