GNU bug report logs - #40951
Weird highlighting

Previous Next

Full log

Message #19 received at 40951 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 40951 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#40951: Weird highlighting
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:19:49 +0200

Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com> writes:

> That only covers Gnus's "writes:" though.  Spelunking in lisp/gnus for
> other verbs featured in gnus-cite-attribution-suffix, I get the
> impression that other MUAs tend to follow suit, but that might be
> wishful thinking.

Yeah, the "says:" stuff can be anything, really.  

> Assuming false negatives (failing to highlight) on articles from
> "non-conforming" MUAs are less annoying than false positives
> (highlighting part of a line that's not introducing a citation) on
> "conforming" ones, I'm still not sure where the right "fix" would
> belong.

Both are pretty annoying, but I don't think there's realistically any
way to fix this to be better than it is.  Some AI analysis would be
handy.  :-)

So I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.