Return-Path: <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4C7431FC0
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 May 2014 01:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.201
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
	FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 56xUSlTY0z81 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Mon, 12 May 2014 01:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com
	[209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF54431FBF
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 May 2014 01:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n15so4004984wiw.3
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 May 2014 01:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id
	:mime-version:content-type;
	bh=ycS+rkS1OWHXfrNz2JIn6iFOEOgn6QO7oEE1MIcIcVw=;
	b=EiQidQSqZFSQYQ/DvFaHYF7ZuqIM+7X7ht6yEuoXRdOG9+61PSh/PcrXGCFDJRMUgq
	2JhFjkvynyT8zB8C1J9Evqj05EuQlU9HaA3V+L0OooESobyBf19UrB6wg66REqwQfdIw
	FXt3LCKnqf9YHGXfzF+B8SF5sXDknLaZ7TskbyqxGxGnZCuJJaoQHDVDS8AR0bF9QxuH
	zK5mrdGUYN6tOyCcaMGwVWazcaDtLBE6McIjBGiPDewZ4nuZKwnlfIGRzVeyGbQeRXhS
	lWIQO/2nQjzuDgbDlihnTR9s7c5ioNsknLUasRL+/wY+pcolHFbZ+OmedTHV0rbGVXOu
	dqtw==
X-Received: by 10.194.122.6 with SMTP id lo6mr20077133wjb.38.1399882272255;
	Mon, 12 May 2014 01:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (5751dfa2.skybroadband.com. [87.81.223.162])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c7sm16890357wjf.19.2014.05.12.01.11.11
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Mon, 12 May 2014 01:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
To: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] emacs: Improve the cited message included in replies
In-Reply-To: <cunzjinbkfr.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
References: <1399482846-25308-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org>
	<1399530272-11857-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org>
	<87ha4y8286.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
	<cunzjinbkfr.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+615~g78e3a93 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:11:10 +0100
Message-ID: <87mwenzaap.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 08:11:19 -0000

On Mon, 12 May 2014, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 10 2014, Mark Walters wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 May 2014, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
>>> emacs: Improve the cited message included in replies
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - Don't run the text/plain hooks when generating the message to quote.
>>>
>>
>> In principle I like this approach: keeping show and reply closely linked
>> seems good.
>>
>> At the moment, as you say, the tests don't all pass. The first reason is
>> that this puts in buttons for the parts. Stopping that happening is not
>> completely trivial as we need to make sure that the instruction gets
>> passed down to sub-parts of multiparts etc. (You could argue that the
>> 'no-button option to notmuch-show-insert-bodypart is buggy as it only
>> stops the top level button for the part)
>
> That seems straightforward. I was sure that there was a variable listing
> part types that didn't require buttons (which could be let-bound), but I
> must have been imagining it.
>
> Inserting the button text for the trivial case (single text/plain part)
> is already special-cased in the show code. In the case where only a
> single part is being shown (e.g. multipart/alternative with text/plain
> and text/html with the text/html hidden) it would make sense _not_ to
> show the button text. For more complex messages (e.g. multipart/mixed
> with text/plain and message/rfc822, where the message/rfc822 contains
> multiple parts), showing the button text seems useful to allow the
> different sub-sections of the reply to be distinguished.

Yes that is true: I hadn't thought of that.

> Perhaps there is an approach based on the complexity of the quoted
> message that should determine whether the button text is inserted (which
> might also apply (in modified form?) in normal message display)? Normal
> message display has to allow for some interaction with the parts
> (show/hide, etc.), which doesn't apply to citation.
>
>> Secondly, the existing code only includes text sub-parts of the
>> message. I would think your version might include any sub-parts show is
>> configured to display, including, say images. (However, in my testing
>> images didn't seem to be included: I am not sure why.)
>
> Eek.

I phrased this badly. I don't want images included: I just couldn't see
why they weren't with your current patch (as they are displayed in show
mode)

>
> Inserting the images in the reply buffer itself would not be
> difficult. What should happen when the user hits 'send'? We currently
> don't have a composition mode that would allow us to generate useful
> output in that case. Adding one feels like a lot of work. In many cases
> it would be necessary to transform the message into HTML to properly
> represent the content.
>
> MML (the markup used in `message-mode') is really not designed for
> something this complex.
>
>> I can't tell how much work it is to modify show to take account of these
>> things, so am not sure if this is the best approach, or just adding
>> something to deal with rfc822 to our existing reply code is easier.
>
> The approach in this patch mostly involves removing code - adding
> special case code to notmuch-mua.el to support message/rfc822 involves
> _adding_ a bunch more complex code (I tried that first).

I guess my concern with adding to the show code is that is already more
complicated than I would like (invisibility, hidden parts, lazy parts
etc). But I am very definitely interested in seeing what a more finished
version of your patch would look like.

Best wishes

Mark