[dev] Fwd: Re: Patch I submitted

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Conor Kerr <conor at dev.ceon.net>:

> It is an estimation, yes, but I'd hardly say it's "wild" guessing since
> Outlook [Express], Hotmail, Eudora and Lotus Notes attach images as
> content-disposition:attachment.

I know that in my Eudora you can attach the files (e.g. images) either
inline or as attachments. And by default it does *not* show images
that are attachments, though that can be *enabled* by the user.

I know either hotmail or yahoo! has recently changed to provide for not
showing content-disposition:attachment images in-line citing security
concerns.  So they seem to be moving towards us, rather than away from
us.

I don't have time to check all the clients you list, but I bet at least some
more of them than Eudora allow for attaching both ways, and to select if you
want to view them or not if they are labeled as attachments, at least in
their newer versions (older versions may be more broken).

So I think again your argument is flawed (since you imply Eudora only
supports them as an attachment disposition, which is wrong, making your
argument either misleading or flawed).

> > I personally don't think this case is less probable but again:
> 
> How could you reasonably think that?  Just think of the shear weight of
> usage of the popular Windoze clients and remember that they don't
> support inline attaching of images.

Wrong.  At least some of them do support inline attaching of images, at
least in some versions on some platforms.  So if your some of your facts
are wrong, I can't accept your conclusion.

And I think more of them are moving towards the standards than away.  It
wouldn't befit us to move away from standards that others are moving 
towards.

> It was clear though that Eric had not read some of my
> post properly

I had.

> for example giving a situational response to a technical
> question.

I was leaving the technical answers for someone else, or for another time.
I have a limited amount of time to reply to such mail, and it currently
doesn't allow me to do the research needed to reply to that part of your
question.

I've already replied in private that *if* I find the time I would reply with
the technical implications, but that I don't have time right now.

> It's quite clear that IMP/Horde is very much a project designed from a
> programmers point of view but usability isn't the responsibility of a
> marketing department.  Usability is very much the responsibility of
> programmers, a fact the ignorance of which has resulted in the mess the
> software industry is in today.

A lot of the usability problem is programs which aren't compatible, which is
because they don't all follow the standards.  So if we break the standards
we add to the problem rather than help resolve it.

> Okay, the inline display of [supported] images marked as attachments
> isn't life or death or in any way critical/important but I must admit to
> a bit of losing of respect for anyone that cannot take account of
> circumstance.

Read that again, and maybe you will see the irony.

> > I understand that you have a different opinion about this but I think I
> > speak for the whole Horde team if I say we can stop this discussion here
> > because we won't apply this particular patch.
> 
> Well that's your perogative, I just can't respect your decision though.

The problem with mailing lists is that they *never* stop the discussion at
the first point were it could be stopped ;)

> Since I first encountered IMP I've long wanted to rewrite the entire
> user-interface side of things to conform to usability standards... it

You are not alone here.  Your input would be appreciated.

> appears we are both advocates of standards but I fear that my openness
> to practical considerations versus your adherance to policies wouldn't
> work in practice

And projecting our attitude to one particular situation to all situations
won't work in practice either.

> subsequently I have lost any desire to further the IMP
> project.

You don't have to give up the war because you lost one battle.

> All the best...
> 
> Conor

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Why get even? Get odd!