On 1/25/10 3:06 PM, "TGC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > TNEF is a royal pain. I have to wonder, though, if there's some serious > hurdle preventing Thunderbird (for instance) from including a TNEF decoder by > default--perhaps Microsoft has some sort of (*ick*) patent on it? Considering the number of applications that deal with it, and that Kerio does tnef decoding on the server, I would tend to doubt it. >> 7) AppleScript is a must. That's not the ONLY way to automate things, and it >> shouldn't be here, but a well-done scripting implementation, (and for >> DEITY$'s sake, NOT APPLE'S! Mail/AB/iCal have the most craptacular scripting >> implementations ever. Mail's one good point is scriptable rules. Other than >> that, take a look at Entourage, it has a fantastic scripting implementation >> that you can do some pretty scary stuff with. (Or just plain evil. I wrote a >> script that converts messages in Entourage to structured PDF through Acrobat >> just to prove that Adobe was full of crap when they said you couldn't do >> this on a Mac. They were less than happy about it. Which of course, was the >> idea.) This application is not going to only interact with shell scripts and >> the handful of jstalk applications. It's going to have to work with a huge >> range of applications, and for that, you need AppleScript. (All arguments >> about syntax quality or lack thereof will be mocked for: Point, you missed >> it. As will "BUT WHAT ABOUT <OTHER> LANGUAGE!. Multiple languages are good.) >> If nothing else, it gives you a great way to see what the next version's new >> features should be. If a lot of people are scripting something, that's a >> hint. > > Err...most of your points I get (I don't always agree, but I get ;-) ), but > this one seems a little incoherent to me. > > I will try and summarize what I think I understand from this, and hope you > will confirm or correct (or complete): > - You want robust and pervasive scripting support > - You want it to support AppleScript > - You want it to at least optionally support other languages > - You want the scripts to be able to do amazing and powerful things Yes. > >> 6) Per-account reply options. My work account has to be top-post, everything >> else I bottom post. > > I would go further and say per-folder. I've never needed it that granular, but sure, if the effort needed isn't overly great. > >> 10) Plugins with a well-documented architecture, yes. Plugins with "here's >> some source, that's all you need", no. >> >> 11) Documentation. It's still important. > > ++ > >> 6) I could care less about external editors, and actually hate the concept. >> (Do YOU get gobs of email composed in Word? I do, and it sucks. It allll >> sucks. Bad idea. BAAAAAAD idea.) > > I don't think anyone's suggesting Word. BBEdit, yes. Word, no. You do realize that once you say 'external editor', your ability to control what that is goes to zero. Quickly. > >> 7) Power User != Programmer, Power User != Programmer, Power User != >> Programmer, Power User != Programmer, Power User != Programmer, Power User >> != Programmer, Power User != Programmer. There, point made. > > But is the purpose of Letters to be an email client for "Power Users", or an > email client for Programmers? That would seem to be the core, as of yet unanswered, question. All the rest of this is meaningless until that is done. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
