Re: TECH: Attachments (was Re: The Grammatical Sketch)

Quoth Padraic Brown:
> There are times I'd like to able to send conlang material as a file
> (Kernu _does_ have accent marks, some of which are actually important;
> but also from here I can't handle accents); but the files would be WP7
> for Windoz.  Not all of us use Windoz, let alone WP7.  So I figure
> it'd be best all around to forgo whatever advantages could be had
> sending attachments so that everyone can read my messages in the
> simplest way possible.
Aha, so the problem is not (just) the attachment, but its format.  I
agree with you there; chances are slim to none of me being able to read
an attachment in Word or WordPerfect format.  But if it's a text file,
or even well-designed (i.e. human-readable) HTML, I still think it's ok
to send an attachment.

> From here, I can read the attached text file (if it's plain text and
> all that); but I can't reply to it as far as I've been able to figure.
Ah, replies.  Hm, yes, I can see an issue there---if the document is
something that invites comment (and thus should be inclusible in
replies), then attachments might be not so good.  My mailer can include
attachments in replies, but I know a lot can't.  Ironically, if your
mailer were *worse* you'd be better off here, because it'd not recognise
it as an attachment and thus just include it directly in the reply. ;\

> Basically it's all a matter playing nice.  I don't mean to yell and
> stomp about; but I _really_ don't like finding unexpected attachments
> that I can't deal with.  Especially ones with tantalising intro matter
> like "Here's a sketch of my conlang..." :)
<g> Fair enough.  I'll be careful in the future when deciding whether to
send attachments or not....

--
-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-dpb@cs.brown.edu-=-=-<http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/>-=-
The light went out, but where to?