On 3 Apr 2014, at 16:16, Rob McBroom wrote:
On 3 Apr 2014, at 5:03, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote:
I think this would be a good idea. I see many emails where
inline-emphasis is used unintentionally and I see very few where it
is used intentionally. If anyone feels strongly against such a change
then speak up now.
I personally wouldn’t miss it, but if anyone would, it would be nice
if they could use HTML to get around it, such as `em<i>phas</i>is on
the wrong syll<i>ab</i>le`.
I suppose that would work if you could switch to a theoretical future
external Markdown converter, so maybe concentrate effort on that over
allowing arbitrary HTML. :-)
Yes, inline HTML would also only be an option with external Markdown
converters (except for signatures).
Somewhat related, I regularly receive requests for _adding_ various
Markdown features/flavors and the plan is to handle it like this when
I get time to implement it: Allow custom Markdown (or other syntax)
converters which can be used to generate the HTML body part of a
message, but when this is done then the converter must also provide
the plain text body part and MailMate won't add anything to the
headers of the message about the plain text body part being Markdown
text.
And in that case, am I correct in assuming that it would be possible
to actually *view* the plain-text part as plain text? That would be
nice.
It would have to work that way, but this really should be optional with
the current Markdown plain text body parts as well (I just haven't
implemented it).
But now I wonder, why not just make it the same across the board?
[...]
Is it worth maintaining code for the two different behaviors to
accommodate such a small group?
Yes.
To me the question should be: Is it worth adding the option of
alternative Markdown converters at the price of people using inline HTML
and other unreadable plain text? I'm not so sure ;-)
--
Benny
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
mailmate@lists.freron.com
http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate