[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: Template Unification
From:       Jonathan Marten <jjm () keelhaul ! demon ! co ! uk>
Date:       2006-11-08 7:36:58
Message-ID: ovu01a75k5.fsf () keelhaul ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

Dmitry Morozhnikov <dmiceman@ubiz.ru> writes:
> To be honest, i`m happy with current organization :-)
> But i`m also understand reasons to make templates interface simpler.

That was part of my reason for proposing the unification - there have
already been comments that the current system is confusing...

> I see a possible problem with creation of per-identity templates folder. As 
> far as i`m understand, folder should be specially marked to contain 
> templates. So it will be not so much simple for peoples to create folder, 
> mark it as intended for templates, go into configuration and select it as a 
> template folder for some specific identity.

That's true, but it only has to be done once.  And it will only have
to be done by advanced users who want custom message formats or
identity-specific templates.  Should have mentioned in my last message
that of course working templates will be available by default - either
a pre-populated template folder or built in fallbacks - so the user
doesn't have to go through any complicated setup to start using mail.

> And existence of per-identity template folder will not help solve
> confusion on which template will be used for some specific action --
> from folder, from identity or global?

The same hierarchy that can exist with your current system: there
could potentially be different custom templates for a folder, for an
identity, and also globally.  There must be a means to choose between
them - I'd guess in that preference order.

> That can be a little complicated from programming point. Big part of 
> kmmessage.cpp need to be rewritten for that purpose because currently 
> reply/forward messages are created from scratch, not from preexisting 
> messages.
>
> What to do with headers already defined in message template? Like From field.

Good point, although there are only a few header fields (addresses,
subject, transport?) that need to be considered.  If they are blank in
the template, there is no problem.  If set in the template, they could
either be merged (if sensible) or ignored.

> Probably there is a need to somehow enter keyboard shortcuts for templates. 
> I`m not use this feature personally yet, but i`m begin to like this idea.

A keyboard shortcut could also be a property of the template, set in
the above dialogue.

> Everything else looks ok for me, except i don`t think what something need to 
> be changed :-) I just can`t imagine this new way of handle templates. And it 
> does not look much less complicated for me.

Now, having seen Allen's latest message regarding timescale, all this
sounds too complex a change to put in at this stage.  So maybe we
should stick with the current system for now, and look at user
reactions if/when it does get out into a release.

-- 
Jonathan Marten                         http://www.keelhaul.demon.co.uk
Twickenham, UK                          jjm@keelhaul.demon.co.uk
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]