> From: "Seth Bienek" <seth at sethbienek.com> > > The flexibility of being able to parse tips within tips is useful, but > are we willing to assume the performance hit of recursive parsing? ugh... as long as you aren't storing them nested in any way... > Also, tip tags should not be nested IMO because each tip is it's own > simple entity, and keping track of nested tips' relationships seems > like it would be a nightmare, unless the idea is to store them > independent of their parent(s) or child(ren), in which case, is the > parent tag incomplete without the tip that was contained inside it? Or > is the 'child' tip left in the original tip and stored redundantly as > it's own tip as well? I am open to discussion on this because it's a > possibility that I'm overlooking some of the usefulness of this > feature. no nesting... that's just... well... absurd... > Parsing only text before "-----Original Message-----" could keep good > tips from being stored, depending on the method people use to reply. > Also, I think that Outlook is the mail prog of choice for only a small > percentage of our members (unfortunately), so I would question whether > this feature is worth the processing overhead for the additional > messages. Again, I could be talked out of these assumptions. > Sometimes thinking "outside the box" is a challenge for me. even when i used outlook for list mail, i *always* trimmed the 'original message' crap... that's what '>' are for... too bad not everybody uses those... we need a primer on email again, and we need to kill apps like Groupwise... anyway, no, there is no generic standard we could use... > Do I get points for using the obnoxious cliche? 15?