On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 14:48 -0400, Frank Burough wrote: > On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 13:31, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > I'm all in favour of pragmatism, but in my view the Evo developers are > > doing the right thing - i.e. program evo to be standards compliant > > *first*, then where possible tweak it to cope with the shortcomings of > > other programs. Evo should stand out as a beacon of excellence and > > conformity that others aspire to, not something that will always play > > second fiddle to an MS product. > > My sentiments exactly. Make it standards compliant then add tweaks. I > also strongly support the sentiment of another poster who suggested that > evo only emit fully compliant messages. Thus evo would always send > standards-compliant messages, would read and properly display > standards-compliant messages and make a good effort of reading messages > that do not abide by the standards but are emitted commonly. That is > emitted by enough broken clients that attempting to deal with them would > add significant value to users.
We seem to all be in agreement about everything but the last (i.e. the tweaks). If Evolution takes the tack of not attempting to "properly" format commonly mis-coded messages to "punish" non-compliant clients like Outlook, it's the users who ultimately get "punished" and that's not good for the acceptance of the application. I'd be against tweaking messages sent by evo, but lenience in accepting messages from common clients seems to be a good thing. _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
