8:11 p.m.
Sorry, I forgot to add the list as an addressee.
Does anyone else get irritated that replying to an xemacs-beta posting
requires extra steps to include the list and remove the poster?
--- Vladimir
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: How to costumize line spacing in Xemacs?
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:20:58 -0800
From: Vladimir G. Ivanovic <vgivanovic(a)comcast.net>
To: Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
References: <185029.72418.qm(a)web92402.mail.cnh.yahoo.com>
<8763lu9kus.fsf(a)xemacs.org>
Is it reasonable to use the specifiers 'minimum-line-descent' and
'minimum-line-ascent'?
In combination, they seem to do the job, but I don't know if there are
any ill side effects (except one: the (block) cursor is in the wrong
place, above the text, instead of on top of the text.)
--- Vladimir
on 12/08/2008 05:51 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
Wung Jianzhou writes:
> How to costumize line spacing in Xemacs?
By writing C code to implement it. Sorry, but as far as I know this
feature is unimplemented in XEmacs. It probably wouldn't be too hard
to hardcode a way to configure additional few pixels in the font
structure, and consult it in the character height computations, but I
don't think such a patch could be added to the main distro as it
probably would mess up other size computations.
In Lisp, it would possible to hack up a no-see-um glyph of appropriate
height you could add to every line. Cf. TeX's \strut.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:53 p.m.
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:11:17 -0800
"Vladimir G. Ivanovic" <vgivanovic(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to add the list as an addressee.
Does anyone else get irritated that replying to an xemacs-beta posting
requires extra steps to include the list and remove the poster?
Why not just reply to the list and the poster? That's what I just
did ;)
Seriously, on mailing lists I never assume that the poster is
subscribed. This may be a subscription only list, I no longer remember,
but many aren't.
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:27 a.m.
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
Sorry, I forgot to add the list as an addressee.
Does anyone else get irritated that replying to an xemacs-beta
posting requires extra steps to include the list and remove the
poster?
Sure, but that's almost always because they use broken MUAs. A
reasonable MUA will have a list-reply function, and with a little
generalization (ie, instead of failing if there is no List-Post
header, it looks for List-Post, Reply-To, and From in that order, and
uses the first one found), `list-reply' is pretty much suitable as
your default reply action. (The day that XEmacs lists start Reply-To
munging is the last day I will be willing to act as postmaster! ;-)
As Sean mentions, it's also reasonable to use a wide reply.
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
Is it reasonable to use the specifiers 'minimum-line-descent'
and
'minimum-line-ascent'?
Hm, I didn't know about those. Very cool! There's an unused
"interline space" struct member somewhere, which is what I was
thinking about.
Yes, that would have the same effect as the "strut" glyph, I think,
but be less kludgy.
In combination, they seem to do the job, but I don't know if
there are
any ill side effects (except one: the (block) cursor is in the wrong
place, above the text, instead of on top of the text.)
I presume that's an effect of minimum-line-ascent? Maybe there's a
way to control the height of the block cursor.
I'm entering a bug report in the tracker. In the future, please feel
free to do this yourself!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:19 a.m.
on 12/09/2008 08:27 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
> Does anyone else get irritated that replying to an xemacs-beta
> posting requires extra steps to include the list and remove the
> poster?
Sure, but that's almost always because they use broken MUAs. A
reasonable MUA ...
I use Thunderbird, and I've used Evolution. Thunderbird doesn't have
an (obvious) List-Reply function, and I don't recall Evolution having
one. So those users are shit out of luck, eh? Stuck in the Dark Ages?
Behind the times? Archaic, obsolete, old? Yeah, fuck 'em.
--- Vladimir
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:28 a.m.
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
As Sean mentions, it's also reasonable to use a wide reply.
A word of caution about wide replies and mailman:
Mailman has an option to "Avoid duplicate copies of messages", which
is usually enabled by default. If you reply to the user as well as the
list, any user who has left that option enabled won't get a copy from
the listserv.
This fails to take account of the fact that being sent a copy isn't
necessarily the same as receiving one, particularly given the
increasing prevalence of aggressive spam filters.
[I get bitten by this occasionally; I send mail directly from my ADSL
line rather than via my ISP's SMTP server. A small number of ISPs
classify the (static) IP address as a "dial-up" connection.]
--
Glynn Clements <glynn(a)gclements.plus.com>
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:32 a.m.
New subject: OT: MUAs that suck
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
on 12/09/2008 08:27 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
>
> Sure, but that's almost always because they use broken MUAs. A
> reasonable MUA ...
I use Thunderbird, and I've used Evolution. Thunderbird doesn't have
an (obvious) List-Reply function, and I don't recall Evolution having
one. So those users are shit out of luck, eh?
No, they just have to work harder than people with competent MUAs, and
won't get much sympathy from me as listmaster, that's all. Their MUAs
are missing an important, well-designed, *ancient* feature for
handling list traffic, and that's not my fault.
Stuck in the Dark Ages? Behind the times?
If they don't understand a ten-year-old standard (RFC 2369, July
1998), indeed they are.
Archaic, obsolete, old? Yeah, fuck 'em.
Hey, I'm sorry that the people who wrote those things thought that
what the world needed was OSS clones of Outlook or Eudora. Obviously
that's a good way to get along in corporate America, which seems to be
an important goal of the GNOME project in general, and of the
Evolution and Tbird projects in particular. Not my problem; their
goals are what they are, and if that works for them and/or you, fine.
It doesn't work for me, though, and since Reply-To munging happens to
be my decision to make, it's only fair that I let you know that this
policy isn't going to change, and why not.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:59 a.m.
Glynn Clements writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> As Sean mentions, it's also reasonable to use a wide reply.
A word of caution about wide replies and mailman:
Mailman has an option to "Avoid duplicate copies of messages", which
is usually enabled by default.
Yeah, and I actually changed that default years ago, because the sense
of the list was that those who wanted to dupe elimination generally
preferred to do that locally via procmail or similar.[1] It seems
that it got reenabled when Tux migrated our lists to a new host, and
now pretty much everybody has caught it. :-(
Still, over-aggressive spam filters (like feature-lacking MUAs) are a
self-inflicted injury. Those folks with ADHD spam filters probably
have bigger problems than missing an occasional xemacs-beta post. :-(
Footnotes:
[1] With the exception of Mail-Followup-To fans, of course.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:06 p.m.
New subject: OT: MUAs that suck
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I use Thunderbird, and I've used Evolution. Thunderbird doesn't have
> an (obvious) List-Reply function, and I don't recall Evolution having
> one. So those users are shit out of luck, eh?
No, they just have to work harder than people with competent MUAs, and
won't get much sympathy from me as listmaster, that's all. Their MUAs
are missing an important, well-designed, *ancient* feature for
handling list traffic, and that's not my fault.
No List-Reply appears to be the case for Thunderbird (there may be an
add-on that I am not aware of; I had a bad experience with Lightning so
I stay away from add-ons). However, Thunderbird allows you to read this
list on gmane. In that case, a simple reply goes to the newsgroup. And
I like the fact that I don't have list emails in my Inbox. I suppose
there is some way to tell how many xemacs-beta users use gmane regularly
vs. email.
Rodney
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:21 a.m.
New subject: OT: MUAs that suck
Rodney Sparapani writes:
I suppose there is some way to tell how many xemacs-beta users use
gmane regularly vs. email.
The only way I know is "vaguely": "a lot". If you know of a way to
achieve higher accuracy, I'd love to know about it!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:09 p.m.
New subject: OT: MUAs that suck
Stephen> The only way I know is "vaguely": "a lot". If you
know of a
Stephen> way to achieve higher accuracy, I'd love to know about it!
At least as far as posting goes you could just count the number of messages
with X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host headers and compare it to the number which
are missing it.
--
Skip Montanaro - skip(a)pobox.com - http://smontanaro.dyndns.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:09 a.m.
New subject: OT: MUAs that suck
skip(a)pobox.com writes:
Stephen> The only way I know is "vaguely": "a lot". If you
know of a
Stephen> way to achieve higher accuracy, I'd love to know about it!
At least as far as posting goes you could just count the number of messages
with X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host headers and compare it to the number which
are missing it.
That's a good suggestion, but as it turns out, I don't care about
counting posters. If they care to be counted, they'll speak up, and
they do. :-) I care about counting lurkers, who by definition rarely
if ever speak up. I suspect that lurkers are more likely to be GMane
readers, but I wouldn't count on that (ie, use the % of posters as a
floor for the % of lurkers).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5612
days inactive
5615
days old
10 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Glynn Clements -
Rodney Sparapani -
Sean MacLennan -
Skip Montanaro -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Vladimir G. Ivanovic