Re: Summary of the situation with the composition process — thoughts wanted

Tanstaafl tanstaafl at
Tue Jun 21 19:13:11 UTC 2011

On 2011-06-21 2:35 PM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
> The Herculean undertaking that this represents. There are zillions of
> options and of possible behaviors; more than a sane man would get crazy
> trying to implement them all. I even regularly discover some new options
> myself: the thing with multiple identities for one single account, all
> preferences regarding composition (top-posting vs bottom-posting,
> signatures above/below the quote, signature / no signature, quote / no
> quote, font, color, html, plaintext, html + plaintext, utf8, no utf8),
> s/mime, attachment reminder, MDN, DSN, autosave, different composition
> modes (edit draft, reply, reply all, new, etc. I think there are 14 of
> them), initial attachments, were we called through mapi, command-line,
> drag&drop of attachments from: the filesystem, another email, an URL...
> I believe some of these options should go away, even if some users are
> going to crucify us for this. I don't think we have the manpower to
> undertake a rewrite of the composition process and still afford to keep
> that variety of customizations.

I'm excited to see movement on the compose editor, and I totally
understand what you are saying about how much work is involved...

Maybe it was just a bad choice of words above, but, rather than say
'some of these options should go away, even if some users are going to
crucify us for this', why not word it like:

"We need to decide on a bare necessity subset of the above options that
everyone (devs) agree are absolutely necessary, but we will be
implementing things such that additional options can be easily added,
both by the core devs in future updates as time/resources permits, and
sooner if desired by extension developers."

The way you worded it above makes it sound like a permanent loss of

More information about the tb-planning mailing list