...what the heck?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

...what the heck?

Fred M. Sloniker
I don't know why, but my first mail to the mailing list shows up as a
barrel of random text on the archive page. Can anyone else read it?
(Hopefully this one goes through.)


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> I don't know why, but my first mail to the mailing list shows up as
> a barrel of random text on the archive page. Can anyone else read
> it? (Hopefully this one goes through.)

Do you mean this http://marc.info/?l=lua-l&m=148648946410118&w=2 ?

Your message is intact as plain text at the top and as HTML at the bottom.

Since you're using Gmail, you can ask for "Plain text" when sending,
but hardly anybody does that nowadays.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Dirk Laurie-2
2017-02-07 20:11 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]>:

>> I don't know why, but my first mail to the mailing list shows up as
>> a barrel of random text on the archive page. Can anyone else read
>> it? (Hopefully this one goes through.)
>
> Do you mean this http://marc.info/?l=lua-l&m=148648946410118&w=2 ?
>
> Your message is intact as plain text at the top and as HTML at the bottom.
>
> Since you're using Gmail, you can ask for "Plain text" when sending,
> but hardly anybody does that nowadays.

I do.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Jonathan Goble
And only the basic Gmail web interface offers this option. The Inbox interface (which I prefer) does not, and neither of the corresponding Android apps do either. For example, I'm replying to this via the Inbox Android app, which offers neither the option to send as plain text nor the ability to type text below the quote (meaning that I'm forced to top-post).

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017, 4:37 PM Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:
2017-02-07 20:11 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]>:
>> I don't know why, but my first mail to the mailing list shows up as
>> a barrel of random text on the archive page. Can anyone else read
>> it? (Hopefully this one goes through.)
>
> Do you mean this http://marc.info/?l=lua-l&m=148648946410118&w=2 ?
>
> Your message is intact as plain text at the top and as HTML at the bottom.
>
> Since you're using Gmail, you can ask for "Plain text" when sending,
> but hardly anybody does that nowadays.

I do.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Paul E. Merrell, J.D.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Goble [via Lua]
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> And only the basic Gmail web interface offers this option. The Inbox
> interface (which I prefer) does not,

Unless Google has an interface I don't know about, it shoudl be there.
In the task bar at the bottom, at the far right there's a drop-down
menu. First option is "Plain text mode." Works for me in all browsers
on Linux and Windoze 7.

Best regards,

Paul
--
[Notice not included in the above original message:  The U.S. National
Security Agency neither confirms nor denies that it intercepted this
message.]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Coda Highland
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Paul E. Merrell, J.D. <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Jonathan Goble [via Lua]
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> And only the basic Gmail web interface offers this option. The Inbox
>> interface (which I prefer) does not,
>
> Unless Google has an interface I don't know about, it shoudl be there.
> In the task bar at the bottom, at the far right there's a drop-down
> menu. First option is "Plain text mode." Works for me in all browsers
> on Linux and Windoze 7.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul

Google has an interface you don't know about. inbox.google.com for
web, "Inbox by Google" on mobile.

/s/ Adam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Paul E. Merrell, J.D.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Coda Highland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Google has an interface you don't know about. inbox.google.com for
> web, "Inbox by Google" on mobile.

Ah, thanks for that bit of education.

Best regards,

Paul

--
[Notice not included in the above original message:  The U.S. National
Security Agency neither confirms nor denies that it intercepted this
message.]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Jonathan Goble
Yes, that is the interface I was referring to. I like it for the ability to bundle messages together in the inbox (e.g. I have it set up to bundle all messages from this list) so I can more easily get an overview of what I have to deal with, and the ability to snooze messages to a later time when I'm more able to deal with them.

But it is more than a bit annoying that they have not bothered to add a plain text option to the interface. And IIRC, a post in a Google Group somewhere suggests that this is a deliberate decision on Google's part, so I don't expect it to be added anytime in the foreseeable future. 

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017, 6:04 PM Paul Merrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Coda Highland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Google has an interface you don't know about. inbox.google.com for
> web, "Inbox by Google" on mobile.

Ah, thanks for that bit of education.

Best regards,

Paul

--
[Notice not included in the above original message:  The U.S. National
Security Agency neither confirms nor denies that it intercepted this
message.]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Dirk Laurie-2
2017-02-08 2:46 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]>:

> Yes, that is the interface I was referring to. I like it for the ability to
> bundle messages together in the inbox (e.g. I have it set up to bundle all
> messages from this list) so I can more easily get an overview of what I have
> to deal with, and the ability to snooze messages to a later time when I'm
> more able to deal with them.

I have zillions of filters sorting mail into folders, bypassing the inbox,
and "Mark as unread" the messages that I need to come back to.

Any other good reasons for investigating the inbox interface?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Jonathan Goble
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:31 AM Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:
2017-02-08 2:46 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]>:

> Yes, that is the interface I was referring to. I like it for the ability to
> bundle messages together in the inbox (e.g. I have it set up to bundle all
> messages from this list) so I can more easily get an overview of what I have
> to deal with, and the ability to snooze messages to a later time when I'm
> more able to deal with them.

I have zillions of filters sorting mail into folders, bypassing the inbox,
and "Mark as unread" the messages that I need to come back to.

Any other good reasons for investigating the inbox interface?


(We're getting a little off-topic here...)

If you've already invested that level of effort into creating a system that works for you, then there's really no reason to switch unless you really, really want to. Inbox is designed around a particular style of workflow, and works really well for that style, but if it's not your style (and it sounds like it isn't for you), then you're better off sticking with the regular Gmail interface.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Francisco Olarte
In reply to this post by Jonathan Goble
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And only the basic Gmail web interface offers this option. The Inbox
> interface (which I prefer) does not, and neither of the corresponding
> Android apps do either. For example, I'm replying to this via the Inbox
> Android app, which offers neither the option to send as plain text nor the
> ability to type text below the quote (meaning that I'm forced to top-post).

And who and how forced you to use that app?

Do not take it personally. Just venting, because I really hear a lot
the "my phone replies like this" excuse when top posting or
full-quoting or you-name-it. My phone mail app is shitty too, that is
why I refrain from using it to reply to messages in the lists where I
think some respect is due to the rest of participants and wait till I
can get to a reasonably good MUA, and why I try to edit my responses
to make them easy to read.

Francisco Olarte.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Jonathan Goble
On Feb 9, 2017 7:02 AM, "Francisco Olarte" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And only the basic Gmail web interface offers this option. The Inbox
> interface (which I prefer) does not, and neither of the corresponding
> Android apps do either. For example, I'm replying to this via the Inbox
> Android app, which offers neither the option to send as plain text nor the
> ability to type text below the quote (meaning that I'm forced to top-post).

And who and how forced you to use that app?

Do not take it personally. Just venting, because I really hear a lot
the "my phone replies like this" excuse when top posting or
full-quoting or you-name-it. My phone mail app is shitty too, that is
why I refrain from using it to reply to messages in the lists where I
think some respect is due to the rest of participants and wait till I
can get to a reasonably good MUA, and why I try to edit my responses
to make them easy to read.

Francisco Olarte.


Unlike many of you, I don't work in an office in front of a computer all day. I bag groceries for minimum wage. So programming is just a hobby for me.

There are frequently days when I go many hours without access to my computer, so sometimes I must send emails from my phone. The reply you quote below, for example, was sent while sitting in the break room at work, with five more hours of work ahead of me and then other things needing done after that before I would have time to get on my computer. Yesterday, I sent an email (not to this list) at 10am that I would have preferred to send from my computer, but I had a very busy day away from the house, so I knew I wouldn't have computer access until after midnight that night. So I sent it from my phone instead.

The real issue here, IMO, is that people here are demanding plain text only in 2017. All good MUAs in 2017 can handle simple HTML gracefully. If one doesn't, then it's not a good MUA, precisely because it is 2017. If you require emails to be sent as plain text in order to be able to read them, you have a tooling problem that is your responsibility to fix. It is not reasonable to force other people on a mailing list to forgo their preferred, modern MUA just so you can continue to use a ridiculously outdated one. And yes, I consider any MUA in 2017 that cannot gracefully handle simple HTML "ridiculously outdated". Even a terminal-based MUA ought to be capable of parsing simple HTML these days and gracefully reducing it to plain text on your client's side. 

Bottom line is that the plain text expectation on this list needs to die, and I'm done jumping through hoops to send as plain text on this list. If you can't read simple HTML in 2017, then you have a problem that is not my responsibility to fix.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Sean Conner
It was thus said that the Great Jonathan Goble once stated:

>
> The real issue here, IMO, is that people here are demanding plain text only
> in 2017. All good MUAs in 2017 can handle simple HTML gracefully. If one
> doesn't, then it's not a good MUA, precisely because it is 2017. If you
> require emails to be sent as plain text in order to be able to read them,
> you have a tooling problem that is your responsibility to fix. It is not
> reasonable to force other people on a mailing list to forgo their
> preferred, modern MUA just so you can continue to use a ridiculously
> outdated one. And yes, I consider any MUA in 2017 that cannot gracefully
> handle simple HTML "ridiculously outdated". Even a terminal-based MUA ought
> to be capable of parsing simple HTML these days and gracefully reducing it
> to plain text on your client's side.

  This cuts both ways.  If, in 2017, your MUA cannot produce proper
multipart/alternative email messages with text/html and text/plain, then
your MUA is broken and you need to get a proper MUA that can create proper
MIME formatted email.  If tooling on the receiving end should parse HTML to
get plain text, then the tooling on the sending end should generate plain
text in addition to HTML.

  Now, for the record, your (Jonathan Goble's) MUA does that---there is both
a text/html section and a text/plain section and I've never had an issue
reading email from you (yes, I use a terminal-based MUA; I find it faster
and it's not susceptible to tracking images and Javascript based exploits).
In fact, it's very rare for me to have an issue with email and when it does
happen, it's almost always some braindead web-based MUA that *only*
generates HTML and base-64 encodes it (just to be extra-special).

> Bottom line is that the plain text expectation on this list needs to die,

  That, I do not agree with, but I'll agree to disagree on this point.

  -spc (I have, however, given up on the whole top-posting vs. inline
        reponse and have learned to accept top-posting due to Microsoft
        shoving that down all our throats ... )


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Jonathan Goble
2017-02-09 23:45 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]>:

<attitude>
> Bottom line is that the plain text expectation on this list needs to die,
> and I'm done jumping through hoops to send as plain text on this list.
> If you can't read simple HTML in 2017, then you have a problem that
> is not my responsibility to fix.
</attitude>

Now, now. Take a deep breath. Take two.

I happen to type plain text formatted in lines of approximately 72
characters because that is a habit I acquired as a Fortran
programmer at a time when the angry young men on this list had
not yet been born. I don't feel that I am jumping through hoops in
order to achieve that.

But I don't expect anybody else to do so too. What you call "the
plain text expectation on this list" is the exhaust fumes of
a vociferious minority.

Please don't start another vociferous minority in opposition to that.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Roberto Ierusalimschy
In reply to this post by Jonathan Goble
> Bottom line is that the plain text expectation on this list needs to die,
> and I'm done jumping through hoops to send as plain text on this list. If
> you can't read simple HTML in 2017, then you have a problem that is not my
> responsibility to fix.

Well, I can read simple HTML in 2017, but I really prefer not to. So,
in general, I tend to pay much less attention to messages in HTML.

I seldom receive messages in HTML in this list. As far as I can see,
the default for gmail is not HMTL, but HTML and plain text (as least
this is how I receive them), and my client gives preference to plain text.

-- Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Andrew Starks-2

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:37 Roberto Ierusalimschy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bottom line is that the plain text expectation on this list needs to die,
> and I'm done jumping through hoops to send as plain text on this list. If
> you can't read simple HTML in 2017, then you have a problem that is not my
> responsibility to fix.

Well, I can read simple HTML in 2017, but I really prefer not to. So,
in general, I tend to pay much less attention to messages in HTML.

I seldom receive messages in HTML in this list. As far as I can see,
the default for gmail is not HMTL, but HTML and plain text (as least
this is how I receive them), and my client gives preference to plain text.

-- Roberto

I'd like to point out that we've all been able to follow each other's contributions to this thread, probably without too much difficulty.

What is required for your happiness? 

When Dirk puts hard returns in his paragraphs, it chops everything up in my email client. But I've become so use to having to spend a few extra parsing cycles on mentally reformatting, piercing through someone's broken English, and other accommodations that are required of our diverse contexts, that I hardly even notice. 

To me, the content on this list is much more important than strict adherence to the formatting guidelines and thankfully the content is often very interesting.

Btw: in google inbox, if you reply directly to a post by clicking on the grey dots to the right of the message's title and then clicking reply, you can avoid top posting. If you instead click on the big reply button on the bottom, you can only top post. 

As to HTML or not, I'm guessing that this is HTML, but I have 0 way to change that. 

-Andrew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Javier Guerra Giraldez
On 10 February 2017 at 14:02, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As to HTML or not, I'm guessing that this is HTML, but I have 0 way to
> change that.


it contains both HTML and plain text versions

--
Javier

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Roberto Ierusalimschy
> On 10 February 2017 at 14:02, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As to HTML or not, I'm guessing that this is HTML, but I have 0 way to
> > change that.
>
>
> it contains both HTML and plain text versions

And the plain-text version, which is the one that I read, has hard
returns in its parapraphs, too (which makes me happy :-)

-- Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Francisco Olarte
In reply to this post by Jonathan Goble
Johnatan:

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Jonathan Goble <[hidden email]> wrote:


> Unlike many of you, I don't work in an office in front of a computer all
> day. I bag groceries for minimum wage. So programming is just a hobby for
> me.

I told you not to take it personally, anyway:

> There are frequently days when I go many hours without access to my
> computer, so sometimes I must send emails from my phone. The reply you quote
> below, for example, was sent while sitting in the break room at work, with
> five more hours of work ahead of me and then other things needing done after
> that before I would have time to get on my computer. Yesterday, I sent an
> email (not to this list) at 10am that I would have preferred to send from my
> computer, but I had a very busy day away from the house, so I knew I
> wouldn't have computer access until after midnight that night. So I sent it
> from my phone instead.

I understand you sometimes can only send from your phone, and I
assumed you did not choose phone over computer having both by dice
toss, or to annoy me. But you did not need to send it from the break
room, in fact I doubt you did even need to send it. Or you could hav
waited for midnight, as you state. As I do not need to send this, I
just want to do it, but nothing harmless would have happened had I
omitted it.


> The real issue here, IMO, is that people here are demanding plain text only
> in 2017. All good MUAs in 2017 can handle simple HTML gracefully. If one
> doesn't, then it's not a good MUA, precisely because it is 2017. If you
> require emails to be sent as plain text in order to be able to read them,
> you have a tooling problem that is your responsibility to fix. It is not
> reasonable to force other people on a mailing list to forgo their preferred,
> modern MUA just so you can continue to use a ridiculously outdated one. And
> yes, I consider any MUA in 2017 that cannot gracefully handle simple HTML
> "ridiculously outdated". Even a terminal-based MUA ought to be capable of
> parsing simple HTML these days and gracefully reducing it to plain text on
> your client's side.

Of course my MUAs handle fairly complex HTML without a problem, and
event much more complex beasts. And the plain text is not what bothers
me. What really annoys me is the full message bottom quoting. This was
pioneered, IIRC, by outlook on the mid 90s, become popular and has
made the mailing lists much harder to read since then. And bottom
quoting is much easier to avoid when using a good HTML MUA than with a
plain text one ( the one I'm using, gmail web, is quite good at
reading rich HTML, but nearly useless to write it, this is one of the
reasons I nearly always use plain text, to save the rest of the
readers from the ugly results of gmail composer ).

I do not try to force anyone to forgo they mua, although I assume any
non outdatet MUA is equally capable of producing plain text ( mines do
at least ).


> Bottom line is that the plain text expectation on this list needs to die,
> and I'm done jumping through hoops to send as plain text on this list. If
> you can't read simple HTML in 2017, then you have a problem that is not my
> responsibility to fix.

I do not expect plain text on the list. AAMOF I've been using MUAS
which can process complex HTML for more than 20 years, and before that
HTML was simple enough to just read the source ( as people tended
touse more semantic markup and use few images and effects ). And rest
assured I'm not expecting you to fix my problems.

Anyway, enough. Send as you wish, I'll read as I wish. ( not too sure
on that construction, excuse my english ).

Francisco Olarte.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ...what the heck?

Jay Carlson
In reply to this post by Fred M. Sloniker
On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Fred M. Sloniker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't know why, but my first mail to the mailing list shows up as a barrel of random text on the archive page. Can anyone else read it? (Hopefully this one goes through.)
>

That mailing list archive web app is a bad mail user agent. It doesn’t understand MIME, which is about…twenty-five years old.

You should upgrade that web site. ;-)  

Jay