Pidgin

On 4/2/07, David Balazic <David.Balazic@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I use beta6 (isn't it time for release ?) and see sometimes text it replaced
> with a graphical
> smiley, when it shouldn't. This is on MSN.
>
> For example :
>
> jboss.j2ee:service
>
> this is displayed as jboss.j2ee(:s)ervice - (:s) is a graphic smiley
>
> Regards,
> David

The official client does that too. Why do you say that it shouldn't do that?

It may not make sense for your particular conversation, but then more
rules would be required to decide if a smiley should be displayed or
not. What is your suggestion?


Stephen

Why not do what the adium guys do? They assume it will be a smiley
face, but allow the user to click on the smileys to display the plain
text version..

On 4/3/07, Evan Schoenberg <evan.s@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Stephen Eilert wrote:
>
>
> The official client does that too. Why do you say that it shouldn't do
> that?The official client is silly to do so; it clearly isn't supposed to be
> an emoticon :)
>
>
>
> It may not make sense for your particular conversation, but then more
>
> rules would be required to decide if a smiley should be displayed or
>
>
> not. What is your suggestion? More rules?  'Course, this from the crazy guy
> who has no major problem with a very seriously overengineered solution to
> the problem:
> http://trac.adiumx.com/browser/trunk/Source/AIEmoticonController.m#L239
>
> -Evan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Gaim-devel mailing list
> Gaim-devel@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel
>
>
>

On 4/2/07, Evan Schoenberg <evan.s@...> wrote:
>
>
> The official client is silly to do so; it clearly isn't supposed to be
> an emoticon :)

That's clear for us, because we can understand the context of the
message. What is silly, in my opinion, is the choice of characters.

>
> It may not make sense for your particular conversation, but then more
>
> rules would be required to decide if a smiley should be displayed or
>
>
> not. What is your suggestion? More rules?

>  'Course, this from the crazy guy
> who has no major problem with a very seriously overengineered solution to
> the problem:
> http://trac.adiumx.com/browser/trunk/Source/AIEmoticonController.m#L239
>
Holy ****. What's next, writing a grammar and using Lex / Yacc? :P

Well, from the code comments:

                     /* We want to show this emoticon if there is:
*              It begins or ends the string
*              It is bordered by spaces or line breaks or quotes on both sides
*              It is bordered by a period on the left and a space or
line break or quote the right
*              It is bordered by emoticons on both sides or by an
emoticon on the left and a period, space, or line break on the right
*/

Ignoring the complexity for something as silly as an emoticon, it
seems adequate.


-- 

Stephen


"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what to have for dinner."

--James Bovard