It seems that Microsoft (6.00.2900.2869) creates
flowed text messages differently from Seamonkey. Seamonkey
creates a content-type header like so:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IS; format=flowed
Whereas Microsoft creates a header like this:
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;
It would be nice if Seamonkey were to recognize Microsoft's
method of specifying flowed messages.
(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be
outside of the specification in RFC2646; however,
accommodating Microsoft's messages should be easy to do, and
is a good idea.)
wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Mumia W. wrote:
It seems that Microsoft (6.00.2900.2869) creates flowed text
messages differently from Seamonkey. Seamonkey creates a content-type
header like so:

>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IS; format=flowed

Whereas Microsoft creates a header like this:

>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;

It would be nice if Seamonkey were to recognize Microsoft's method of
specifying flowed messages.

(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be outside of
the specification in RFC2646; however, accommodating Microsoft's
messages should be easy to do, and is a good idea.)

again, why? Why support an application that you admit is UTSIDE
the specifications of RFC2646?
Isnt that like saying lets reward those applications that dont follow
the standards? Whats the use of standards, lets all just let Microsoft
do it and everyone will follow them! Sheesh

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

[] Microsoft creates a header like this:
>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;
(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be outside
of the specification in RFC2646; however, accommodating Microsoft's
messages should be easy to do, and is a good idea.)

I'm not convinced of either part (that it's easy or that it's a good
idea).

It's not easy unless there is a spec for these X-RFC2646: headers, and
I don't see any.

And I don't think it's a good idea to encourage anyone, least of all
Microsoft, to create mutant versions of things there are already
perfectly good standards for. If they were trying to express something
not expressible within the standardized mechanisms, you might have a
point, but as far as I can see that's not the case here.

/~\ The ASCIIder Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse (AT) rodents (DOT) montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

08/07/2006 11:49 AM, der Mouse wrote:
>[] Microsoft creates a header like this:
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;
>(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be outside
>of the specification in RFC2646; however, accommodating Microsoft's
>messages should be easy to do, and is a good idea.)

I'm not convinced of either part (that it's easy or that it's a good
idea).

It's not easy unless there is a spec for these X-RFC2646: headers, and
I don't see any.

There is no spec. That's why it's an X- header. You simply
look at the header text to determine the format.

And I don't think it's a good idea to encourage anyone, least of all
Microsoft, to create mutant versions of things there are already
perfectly good standards for.

It's not a matter of encouragement; it's a matter of
interoperability and convenience.

If they were trying to express something
not expressible within the standardized mechanisms, you might have a
point, but as far as I can see that's not the case here.

What is 's main claim to fame with
the S file format? Why does Wine exist?

Why should Mozilla support Yenc (for which no official
standard exists) when MIME/Base64 does practically the same
thing?

The answer to question number one is that 's main
claim to fame is compatibility with /Microsoft's/ file formats.

The answer to question number two is that Wine exists to
support the interoperability and convenience of executing
Microsoft Windows executables under Linux.

The answer to question number three is that Mozilla looks
crippled without support for the Yenc "standard" because
nearly every other graphical newsreader supports Yenc and that
supporting Yenc creates interoperability with other news
programs and convenience for users.

Compared to supporting Yenc (which Mozilla partially
supports), looking for a header that reads "X-RFC2646:
Format=Flowed" is just too simple.

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

08/05/2006 11:48 PM, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
Mumia W. wrote:
>It seems that Microsoft (6.00.2900.2869) creates flowed text
>messages differently from Seamonkey. Seamonkey creates a content-type
>header like so:
>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IS; format=flowed
>>
>Whereas Microsoft creates a header like this:
>>
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;
>>
>It would be nice if Seamonkey were to recognize Microsoft's method of
>specifying flowed messages.
>>
>(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be outside
>of the specification in RFC2646; however, accommodating Microsoft's
>messages should be easy to do, and is a good idea.)
>>
>>
>>

again, why? Why support an application that you admit is UTSIDE
the specifications of RFC2646?

I chose my words carefully. I didn't say it violates the
specification; I said it's outside of the specification; it
similar to saying that being inside Canada is being outside of
the United States; there's nothing illegal about it's just
where you are.

RFC2646 specifies how MIME messages can be formatted flowed,
but the messages I've seen so far from are not MIME
messages. RFC2646 does not prohibit other means of formatting
flowed text messages.

Isnt that like saying lets reward those applications that dont follow
the standards?

The reward goes to Mozilla. Support for another means of
recognizing flowed messages helps Mozilla work better with the
messages that other clients are creating.

Whats the use of standards, lets all just let Microsoft
do it and everyone will follow them! Sheesh

It's not simply following Microsoft; I call it "embrace and
extend." ;-)

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Mumia W. wrote:
08/05/2006 11:48 PM, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>Mumia W. wrote:
It seems that Microsoft (6.00.2900.2869) creates flowed text
messages differently from Seamonkey. Seamonkey creates a content-type
header like so:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IS; format=flowed

Whereas Microsoft creates a header like this:

X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;

It would be nice if Seamonkey were to recognize Microsoft's method of
specifying flowed messages.

(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be outside
of the specification in RFC2646; however, accommodating Microsoft's
messages should be easy to do, and is a good idea.)


>>
>>
>again, why? Why support an application that you admit is UTSIDE
>the specifications of RFC2646?

I chose my words carefully. I didn't say it violates the specification;
I said it's outside of the specification; it similar to saying that
being inside Canada is being outside of the United States; there's
nothing illegal about it's just where you are.

And I chose my words EQUALLY as carefully, I asked you a question

WHY SUPPRT an application that you admit is UTSIDE the specifications
of RFC2646?

Who said anything about violates anyway? I didnt. You did.

RFC2646 specifies how MIME messages can be formatted flowed, but the
messages I've seen so far from are not MIME messages. RFC2646
does not prohibit other means of formatting flowed text messages.

>Isnt that like saying lets reward those applications that dont follow
>the standards?

The reward goes to Mozilla. Support for another means of recognizing
flowed messages helps Mozilla work better with the messages that other
clients are creating.

No, its a reward for an application that is outside the RFC standard.

Whats the use of standards, lets all just let Microsoft
>do it and everyone will follow them! Sheesh

It's not simply following Microsoft; I call it "embrace and extend." ;-)

No, I disagree. Following 'Microsofts' standards is what got people into
trouble in the first place. Even the US Government calls IE a security
risk - according to your dictates then, Firefox should become the same
security risk by emulating what Microsoft does - embrace and extend indeed.

Besides, if Microsofts follows its pattern with Word the next release
of will include ANTHER 'improvement' to format flowed - forcing
everyone to upgrade to the new version - if Mozilla followed your
dictates they would have to upgrade as well - and then what if their
version opens up another security risk in the system? Mozilla should
follow suit as well?

Mozilla follows the 'standards'

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Wolf Paul wrote:
You're not rewarding "the application", you're helping users who for
whatever reason are still using (it may not be their choice;
is dictated to lots of users by their management).

Some of us are less concerned with "purity" and more with "utility".

Regards,

Wolf Paul


>>
>again, why? Why support an application that you admit is UTSIDE
>the specifications of RFC2646?
>Isnt that like saying lets reward those applications that dont follow
>the standards? Whats the use of standards, lets all just let Microsoft
>do it and everyone will follow them! Sheesh
>
>wishlist mailing list
>wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org
>
>>

Please bottom-post in these newsgroups if you will, that is, quote
previoius messages (or parts thereof) and then write your reply, such as
I have done. Thank you for your considertion in this matter
refers

No, I disagree. Following Microsofts lead is NT a good thing. Take
their web browser for example, if following YUR idea, that its a good
thing to emulate Microsoft, all browsers would be as security exploit
riddled as IE is. Even the US Government rates it as a security risk.

Just because Microsoft in its wisdom decides to trot out a 'new' feature
everyone else is suppossed to adapt to it? And what happens if two
months down the road, someone discovers a securtiy exploit in that new
feature? What happens if in the next version of they change the
feature yet again - is everyone suppossed to rush to update? Microsoft
does that with Word regularly after all.

Standards are there. Mozilla products follow the standards, not some
Microsofts programmers who are creating products and features that are
outside the standards.

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

08/07/2006 11:56 PM, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
Mumia W. wrote:
>08/05/2006 11:48 PM, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
Mumia W. wrote:
It seems that Microsoft (6.00.2900.2869) creates flowed text
messages differently from Seamonkey. Seamonkey creates a
content-type header like so:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IS; format=flowed

Whereas Microsoft creates a header like this:

X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed;

It would be nice if Seamonkey were to recognize Microsoft's method
of specifying flowed messages.

(Microsoft's method for creating flowed messages seems to be outside
of the specification in RFC2646; however, accommodating Microsoft's
messages should be easy to do, and is a good idea.)

again, why? Why support an application that you admit is UTSIDE
the specifications of RFC2646?
>>
>I chose my words carefully. I didn't say it violates the
>specification; I said it's outside of the specification; it similar to
>saying that being inside Canada is being outside of the United States;
>there's nothing illegal about it's just where you are.

And I chose my words EQUALLY as carefully, I asked you a question

WHY SUPPRT an application that you admit is UTSIDE the specifications
of RFC2646?

And I answered: interoperability and convenience.

Who said anything about violates anyway? I didnt. You did.

>>
>RFC2646 specifies how MIME messages can be formatted flowed, but the
>messages I've seen so far from are not MIME messages. RFC2646
>does not prohibit other means of formatting flowed text messages.
>>
Isnt that like saying lets reward those applications that dont follow
the standards?
>>
>The reward goes to Mozilla. Support for another means of recognizing
>flowed messages helps Mozilla work better with the messages that other
>clients are creating.

No, its a reward for an application that is outside the RFC standard.

It can't be a reward to Microsoft if they deliberately choose
a non-standard method to break other mail apps and Mozilla
refuses to be broken by supporting the alternate method.

>>
>Whats the use of standards, lets all just let Microsoft
do it and everyone will follow them! Sheesh
>>
>It's not simply following Microsoft; I call it "embrace and extend." ;-)
>>

No, I disagree. Following 'Microsofts' standards is what got people into
trouble in the first place. Even the US Government calls IE a security
risk

That's the biggest non-sequitor I've heard all week.
- according to your dictates then, Firefox should become
the same
security risk by emulating what Microsoft does - embrace and extend indeed.

That's a ludicrous straw man argument. I'm not talking about
Fx; I'm talking about TB and SM. I'm not talking about
integrating IE core functionality into TB and SM; I'm talking
about matching a simple regular expression: /^X-RFC2646:
*Format *= *Flowed/i

Besides, if Microsofts follows its pattern with Word the next release
of will include ANTHER 'improvement' to format flowed - forcing
everyone to upgrade to the new version

So what? Right now, this is just too easy to do.
- if Mozilla followed your dictates

I'm not dictating anything; I'm offering a suggestion for a
very simple to implement improvement.

they would have to upgrade as well - and then what if their
version opens up another security risk in the system? Mozilla should
follow suit as well?

Mozilla follows the 'standards'

LL

What standards are there for an address book feature in an
e-mail app? None. What standards say what should happen when a
user clicks on a URL in a text message? None. What standards
say what should happen when the user installs a new theme? None.

There are over 1,000 things that TB and SM do that are 500
times more complicated than matching a regular expression for
a certain mail header, and for which, there are no standards.

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Mumia W. wrote:
[]

Can we end this thread between you and Dan, at least as long as there
continues to be no NEW information presented.

We all know the rhetoric, and both your sides, as currently expressed.

I sense if it continues this thread will erupt into a flame war between
the two of you, and I'd like to avoid that.

Thanks,
~Justin Wood (Callek)

wishlist mailing list
wishlist (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org