Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #82759 > unrolled thread

what is wrong with d.clear()?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  what is wrong with d.clear()? shawool <shawool@gmail.com> - 2014-12-21 12:58 +0530
    Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2014-12-22 10:15 -0800
      Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 12:54 -0800
        Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2014-12-22 13:19 -0800
          Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-12-22 16:59 -0500
            Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-12-23 13:33 +1100
              Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-12-22 22:18 -0500
              Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2014-12-23 12:25 +0200
                Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? shawool <shawool@gmail.com> - 2014-12-23 18:29 +0530
                  Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 04:21 -0800
                    Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? shawool <shawool@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 20:53 +0530
                      Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 07:51 -0800
                    Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-12-25 21:38 -0700
                Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-12-23 15:15 -0500
                  Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-12-23 21:08 +0000
                    Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-12-24 08:31 +1100
                      Re: Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?) alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-12-23 22:15 +0000
                        Re: Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-12-24 13:23 +1100
                          Re: Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?) alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-12-24 11:42 +0000
                    Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 09:31 +1100
                      Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-12-23 22:38 +0000
                        Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 09:44 +1100
                Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-12-24 08:08 +1100
                [OT]Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? m <mvoicem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-06 00:05 +0100
        Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-03-05 16:34 -0500
      Re: what is wrong with d.clear()? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-12-23 13:27 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#82759 — what is wrong with d.clear()?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

where am i going wrong ?

$ python3
Python 3.2.5 (default, Oct  2 2013, 22:58:11)
[GCC 4.8.1] on cygwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> d = {}
>>> import sys
>>> d = sys.modules
>>> type(d)
<class 'dict'>
>>> dir(d)
['__class__', '__contains__', '__delattr__', '__delitem__', '__doc__',
'__eq__', '__format__', '__ge__', '__getattribute__', '__getitem__',
'__gt__', '__hash__', '__init__', '__iter__', '__le__', '__len__',
'__lt__', '__ne__', '__new__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__',
'__setattr__', '__setitem__', '__sizeof__', '__str__', '__subclasshook__',
'clear', 'copy', 'fromkeys', 'get', 'items', 'keys', 'pop', 'popitem',
'setdefault', 'update', 'values']
>>> d.clear()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>>> d
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>>> quit()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Shawool

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#82795

On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:15 AM UTC-8, shawool wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> where am i going wrong ?
> 
> $ python3
> Python 3.2.5 (default, Oct  2 2013, 22:58:11)
> [GCC 4.8.1] on cygwin
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> d = {}
> >>> import sys
> >>> d = sys.modules
> >>> type(d)
> <class 'dict'>
> >>> dir(d)
> ['__class__', '__contains__', '__delattr__', '__delitem__', '__doc__', '__eq__', '__format__', '__ge__', '__getattribute__', '__getitem__', '__gt__', '__hash__', '__init__', '__iter__', '__le__', '__len__', '__lt__', '__ne__', '__new__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__setattr__', '__setitem__', '__sizeof__', '__str__', '__subclasshook__', 'clear', 'copy', 'fromkeys', 'get', 'items', 'keys', 'pop', 'popitem', 'setdefault', 'update', 'values']
> >>> d.clear()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> >>> d
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> >>> quit()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Shawool

Is there a reason you're composing your messages with a large, colored font?

Shit's obnoxious, yo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82807

On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:03 PM UTC-6, sohca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:15 AM UTC-8, shawool wrote:
> 
> [snip: OP's adolescent accessorizing] @_@
> 
> Is there a reason you're composing your messages with a
> large, colored font Shit's obnoxious, yo.

Whilst i don't share shawool's penchant of utilizing the
brutish urban vernacular, i must agree that he has a valid
point.

Please don't be tempted to use large fonts (or very small
fonts), typically anything around 12 pts will suffice. Also,
using any font color besides black, or background color
besides white, should be limited except to *VERY* rare
occasions. 

If you think that by using a large font and bright color for
you "whole post" that your question is more likely to "stand
out", then you are correct, but it most likely stand out in
a negative way. I feel it just as annoying as someone who
constantly bumps a thread even when no one is responding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82808

On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:54:55 PM UTC-8, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:03 PM UTC-6, sohca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:15 AM UTC-8, shawool wrote:
> > 
> > [snip: OP's adolescent accessorizing] @_@
> > 
> > Is there a reason you're composing your messages with a
> > large, colored font Shit's obnoxious, yo.
> 
> Whilst i don't share shawool's penchant of utilizing the
> brutish urban vernacular, i must agree that he has a valid
> point.
> 
> Please don't be tempted to use large fonts (or very small
> fonts), typically anything around 12 pts will suffice. Also,
> using any font color besides black, or background color
> besides white, should be limited except to *VERY* rare
> occasions. 
> 

I would argue that you should never use *ANY* formatting.  No font size changes.  No colors.  No fonts.  If you need to set a larger font because you have difficulty reading, then just change your client's display font.  There's no need to compose messages that send HTML to override how other people see your message.  It's just rude, since they might have their client set to use a specific font size when viewing messages, and you've just overridden it for selfish reasons.

Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.

> If you think that by using a large font and bright color for
> you "whole post" that your question is more likely to "stand
> out", then you are correct, but it most likely stand out in
> a negative way. I feel it just as annoying as someone who
> constantly bumps a thread even when no one is responding.

Absolutely agreed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82809

On 12/22/2014 04:19 PM, sohcahtoa82@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:54:55 PM UTC-8, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:03 PM UTC-6, sohca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:16:15 AM UTC-8, shawool wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip: OP's adolescent accessorizing] @_@
>>>
>>> Is there a reason you're composing your messages with a
>>> large, colored font Shit's obnoxious, yo.
>>
>> Whilst i don't share shawool's penchant of utilizing the
>> brutish urban vernacular, i must agree that he has a valid
>> point.
>>
>> Please don't be tempted to use large fonts (or very small
>> fonts), typically anything around 12 pts will suffice. Also,
>> using any font color besides black, or background color
>> besides white, should be limited except to *VERY* rare
>> occasions.
>>
>
> I would argue that you should never use *ANY* formatting.  No font size changes.  No colors.  No fonts.  If you need to set a larger font because you have difficulty reading, then just change your client's display font.  There's no need to compose messages that send HTML to override how other people see your message.  It's just rude, since they might have their client set to use a specific font size when viewing messages, and you've just overridden it for selfish reasons.
>
> Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
>
>> If you think that by using a large font and bright color for
>> you "whole post" that your question is more likely to "stand
>> out", then you are correct, but it most likely stand out in
>> a negative way. I feel it just as annoying as someone who
>> constantly bumps a thread even when no one is responding.
>
> Absolutely agreed.
>

Or even better:  Don't use html email for forum messages.  It frequently 
messes up the colors, the font, the formatting (like indentation), or 
even prevents some people from even seeing and/or replying to the 
message.  Put the email program in text mode, and just send what you 
want people to see.

-- 
DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82828

Dave Angel wrote:

> Or even better:  Don't use html email for forum messages.  It frequently
> messes up the colors, the font, the formatting (like indentation), or
> even prevents some people from even seeing and/or replying to the
> message.  Put the email program in text mode, and just send what you
> want people to see.


I agree, but alas the horse has bolted and the idiots have taken over.

We cannot stop the great mass of people sending HTML mail, but there is no
reason why we have to *read* HTML email. Even today, most mail clients will
send a plain text part that contains the same content as the HTML part, and
any decent mail client can be set to prefer the plain text part in
preference to rendering the HTML.

For those few cases where there is no plain text part[1], the better mail
clients (such as mutt) will include an option to dump the raw HTML to plain
text, minus all the tags.

Last but not least, for the *vanishingly small* number of cases that has no
plain text part, and the formatting of the text dump is unreadable, or
where the formatting of the HTML is actually essential to understanding the
post, then you have a choice of pressing Delete on the message or rendering
the HTML. But rendering HTML should never be the default.




[1] Or worse, one of those shitty messages that include a plain text part
that says "Your mail program cannot read this email. Please upgrade to a
better mail program."


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82830

On 12/22/2014 09:33 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Dave Angel wrote:
>
>> Or even better:  Don't use html email for forum messages.  It frequently
>> messes up the colors, the font, the formatting (like indentation), or
>> even prevents some people from even seeing and/or replying to the
>> message.  Put the email program in text mode, and just send what you
>> want people to see.
>
>
> I agree, but alas the horse has bolted and the idiots have taken over.
>
> We cannot stop the great mass of people sending HTML mail, but there is no
> reason why we have to *read* HTML email. Even today, most mail clients will
> send a plain text part that contains the same content as the HTML part, and
> any decent mail client can be set to prefer the plain text part in
> preference to rendering the HTML.
>
> For those few cases where there is no plain text part[1], the better mail
> clients (such as mutt) will include an option to dump the raw HTML to plain
> text, minus all the tags.
>
> Last but not least, for the *vanishingly small* number of cases that has no
> plain text part, and the formatting of the text dump is unreadable, or
> where the formatting of the HTML is actually essential to understanding the
> post, then you have a choice of pressing Delete on the message or rendering
> the HTML. But rendering HTML should never be the default.
>
>
>
>
> [1] Or worse, one of those shitty messages that include a plain text part
> that says "Your mail program cannot read this email. Please upgrade to a
> better mail program."
>
>

I have set my regular email program (Thunderbird) to text only for 
years.  But many times the conversion done by the sender's dumb email 
makes his message look good to him, and mine like garbage, with messed 
up indentation, modified characters, and so on.

Further, I really tried to use a tablet, with a newsreader that is 
slowly changing to my wishes.  But I've given up for a few months, and 
only check messages when my notebook compuater (with Thunderbird) is 
available.

Sometime in the hopefully near future, I'll try an Android newsreader 
again, but reading html and responding when there's no quoting was just 
too painful.

-- 
DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82834

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:33:53 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:

>Dave Angel wrote:
>
>> Or even better:  Don't use html email for forum messages.  It frequently
>> messes up the colors, the font, the formatting (like indentation), or
>> even prevents some people from even seeing and/or replying to the
>> message.  Put the email program in text mode, and just send what you
>> want people to see.
>
>
>I agree, but alas the horse has bolted and the idiots have taken over.
>
>We cannot stop the great mass of people sending HTML mail, but there is no
>reason why we have to *read* HTML email. Even today, most mail clients will
>send a plain text part that contains the same content as the HTML part, and
>any decent mail client can be set to prefer the plain text part in
>preference to rendering the HTML.
>
>For those few cases where there is no plain text part[1], the better mail
>clients (such as mutt) will include an option to dump the raw HTML to plain
>text, minus all the tags.
>
>Last but not least, for the *vanishingly small* number of cases that has no
>plain text part, and the formatting of the text dump is unreadable, or
>where the formatting of the HTML is actually essential to understanding the
>post, then you have a choice of pressing Delete on the message or rendering
>the HTML. But rendering HTML should never be the default.

I had a message, discussed in another NG, inviting me to look at someone's
family tree on the web. It had no plain text version, and when I clicked on
the relevant link, it crashed my mail reader. 

When I right-clicked on the link and tried to copy the URL to paste ibnto the
address line of my web browser, it led to a "file not found" page. 

The HTML was enormously complex, and all they were supposed to be sending was
a simple link. 

>[1] Or worse, one of those shitty messages that include a plain text part
>that says "Your mail program cannot read this email. Please upgrade to a
>better mail program."

I usually reply to those saying "So why did you send it to me?" 

I suspect that in most cases the senders do not know that that is what their
mail program is sending, and do it to let them know that their mesdsage could
not be read. 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82837

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Thank you for answering my query.

Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience
caused.

Regards,
Shawool

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:33:53 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> >Dave Angel wrote:
> >
> >> Or even better:  Don't use html email for forum messages.  It frequently
> >> messes up the colors, the font, the formatting (like indentation), or
> >> even prevents some people from even seeing and/or replying to the
> >> message.  Put the email program in text mode, and just send what you
> >> want people to see.
> >
> >
> >I agree, but alas the horse has bolted and the idiots have taken over.
> >
> >We cannot stop the great mass of people sending HTML mail, but there is no
> >reason why we have to *read* HTML email. Even today, most mail clients
> will
> >send a plain text part that contains the same content as the HTML part,
> and
> >any decent mail client can be set to prefer the plain text part in
> >preference to rendering the HTML.
> >
> >For those few cases where there is no plain text part[1], the better mail
> >clients (such as mutt) will include an option to dump the raw HTML to
> plain
> >text, minus all the tags.
> >
> >Last but not least, for the *vanishingly small* number of cases that has
> no
> >plain text part, and the formatting of the text dump is unreadable, or
> >where the formatting of the HTML is actually essential to understanding
> the
> >post, then you have a choice of pressing Delete on the message or
> rendering
> >the HTML. But rendering HTML should never be the default.
>
> I had a message, discussed in another NG, inviting me to look at someone's
> family tree on the web. It had no plain text version, and when I clicked on
> the relevant link, it crashed my mail reader.
>
> When I right-clicked on the link and tried to copy the URL to paste ibnto
> the
> address line of my web browser, it led to a "file not found" page.
>
> The HTML was enormously complex, and all they were supposed to be sending
> was
> a simple link.
>
> >[1] Or worse, one of those shitty messages that include a plain text part
> >that says "Your mail program cannot read this email. Please upgrade to a
> >better mail program."
>
> I usually reply to those saying "So why did you send it to me?"
>
> I suspect that in most cases the senders do not know that that is what
> their
> mail program is sending, and do it to let them know that their mesdsage
> could
> not be read.
>
>
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
> Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
> Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
> uk
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82886

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:30:30 PM UTC+5:30, shawool wrote:
> Thank you for answering my query.
> 
> Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
> 
> Regards,
> Shawool

Sorry for the peevishness
Are you using gmail?
If so when you compose a message
The compose window has little downward triangle
In there there is a 'plain text' option

You need to use that

[I just use google groups]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82893

I was unable to find an option to disable HTML mode.
Thanks for letting me know how to enable plain text mode.
I just followed the steps and hopefully this message is in plain text format.

Regards,
Shawool


On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:30:30 PM UTC+5:30, shawool wrote:
>> Thank you for answering my query.
>>
>> Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shawool
>
> Sorry for the peevishness
> Are you using gmail?
> If so when you compose a message
> The compose window has little downward triangle
> In there there is a 'plain text' option
>
> You need to use that
>
> [I just use google groups]
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82894

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 8:53:54 PM UTC+5:30, shawool wrote:
> I was unable to find an option to disable HTML mode.
> Thanks for letting me know how to enable plain text mode.
> I just followed the steps and hopefully this message is in plain text format.


Your headers show

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

which is as good as it gets -- congrats!
Yeah its html XOR plain-text.

And people here prefer the latter.

One more thing while we are at it:

Do try to use interleaved posting not top posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Placement_of_replies

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82947

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:30:30 PM UTC+5:30, shawool wrote:
>> Thank you for answering my query.
>>
>> Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shawool
>
> Sorry for the peevishness
> Are you using gmail?
> If so when you compose a message
> The compose window has little downward triangle
> In there there is a 'plain text' option

Ooh, thanks. I used to use plain text mode but at some point I lost
track of the option, so for every reply I've been having to show the
quoted portion, select all, and hit the remove formatting shortcut.
This makes it a lot simpler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82853

On 12/23/2014 07:59 AM, shawool wrote:
> Thank you for answering my query.
>
> Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience
> caused.
>
> Regards,
> Shawool

The following is a piece of your message:

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Thank you for answering my query.<br><br></=
div>Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience=
  caused.<br><br></div>Regards,<br></div>Shawool<br></div><div 
class=3D"gmai=
l_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM, St=
eve Hayes <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:hayesstw@telkomsa.net" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">hayesstw@telkomsa.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:33:53 +1100, Ste=
ven D&#39;Aprano<br>

Still looks like html to me.  Sooner or later you'll mess somebody up 
doing that.  My current email program can ignore that part, and for a 
simple message I have no problem, but many of us have had trouble 
before, and will again.

As Steven says, it's probably hopeless, but if I can just convince a few 
more people --     tell your email program to just use text.  Help stamp 
out html mail, except when it actually helps.  And not on a text forum, 
where some gateways don't even handle the html correctly.


-- 
DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82855

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:15:03 -0500, Dave Angel wrote:

> On 12/23/2014 07:59 AM, shawool wrote:
>> Thank you for answering my query.
>>
>> Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the inconvenience
>> caused.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shawool
> 
> The following is a piece of your message:
> 
> <div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Thank you for answering my
> query.<br><br></=
> div>Fonts and colors are reset to defaults now. Sorry for the
> inconvenience=
>   caused.<br><br></div>Regards,<br></div>Shawool<br></div><div
> class=3D"gmai=
> l_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:55 PM,
> St=
> eve Hayes <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:hayesstw@telkomsa.net"
> ta=
> rget=3D"_blank">hayesstw@telkomsa.net</a>&gt;</span>
> wrote:<br><blockquote =
> class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
> solid=
> ;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:33:53 +1100,
> Ste=
> ven D&#39;Aprano<br>
> 
> Still looks like html to me.  Sooner or later you'll mess somebody up
> doing that.  My current email program can ignore that part, and for a
> simple message I have no problem, but many of us have had trouble
> before, and will again.
> 
> As Steven says, it's probably hopeless, but if I can just convince a few
> more people --     tell your email program to just use text.  Help stamp
> out html mail, except when it actually helps.  And not on a text forum,
> where some gateways don't even handle the html correctly.

+1 
Sometime I have to switch to HTML @ work but even then only when I want 
to send someone a screen shot
HTML mail when not required breaks the 1st rule of all engineering 
(including software engineering) KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.
 



-- 
Who are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82858 — Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?)

alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> writes:

> Sometime I have to switch to HTML @ work but even then only when I want 
> to send someone a screen shot

I've been able to attach images to plain text messages without any
trouble. Why would HTML be needed? MIME attachments work just fine.

-- 
 \       “In the long run nothing can withstand reason and experience, |
  `\    and the contradiction which religion offers to both is all too |
_o__)                                        palpable.” —Sigmund Freud |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82860 — Re: Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?)

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 08:31:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

> alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> writes:
> 
>> Sometime I have to switch to HTML @ work but even then only when I want
>> to send someone a screen shot
> 
> I've been able to attach images to plain text messages without any
> trouble. Why would HTML be needed? MIME attachments work just fine.

Indeed although sometimes it is better to have the image "in Line" rather 
than forcing the recipient to open it in another application.

for the same reason a pet hate of mine is a memo sent as an attached 
document when it could simply have been the body of the text.

I try to use the right format & the right time (& I do not claim to be 
perfect at this) & limit my HTML emails to when they will benefit the 
intended recipient ( A knowledge of the intended recipient helps in 
making this choice).

a news group is not the place for HTML


-- 
A private sin is not so prejudicial in the world as a public indecency.
		-- Miguel de Cervantes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82871 — Re: Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?)

alister wrote:

> for the same reason a pet hate of mine is a memo sent as an attached
> document when it could simply have been the body of the text.

And then the attached document (a Word doc, naturally) simply says "Please
see <some URL>", which opens to a page which links to a PDF file which
contains a one sentence message.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82883 — Re: Sending plain text messages (was: what is wrong with d.clear()?)

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:23:34 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> alister wrote:
> 
>> for the same reason a pet hate of mine is a memo sent as an attached
>> document when it could simply have been the body of the text.
> 
> And then the attached document (a Word doc, naturally) simply says
> "Please see <some URL>", which opens to a page which links to a PDF file
> which contains a one sentence message.

And usually it is a reminder from the IT dept not to open unexpected 
attachments!



-- 
It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.
		-- Phil White

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#82861

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:08 AM, alister
<alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Sometime I have to switch to HTML @ work but even then only when I want
> to send someone a screen shot

Attachments don't work?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web