On Sat, Feb 08 2014, "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 08:29:41PM +0200, Tomi Ollila wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 08 2014, W. Trevor King wrote: >> > On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 09:54:28AM -0400, David Bremner wrote: >> >> >> >> yeah, the colour scheme is not my favourite. For the sake of being >> >> semi-constructive, I attach an alternative suggestion #ffd96e and >> >> #bce. >> > >> > Works for me. >> >> I'm fine with that too. > > Updated in my example and nmbug-status-python3 branch. > >> >> More importantly some of the threads are run together: e.g. >> >> >> >> id:"4eddf2b1.4288980a.0b74.5557@mx.google.com" and >> >> id:"E1RYMYd-0003wu-Ea@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de" >> > >> > Both of those messages are part of the same thread >> > (thread:000000000000eaab on my box, but I doubt thread IDs are >> > portable), so I don't add a thread-separating space between them. >> > Would you like more message-separating space even between messages >> > in the same thread? >> >> … >> >> I think the more space does not fix anything but it might help >> regognizing message boundaries a bit (and thus would be a nice >> feature). > > Added to my example and nmbug-status-python3 branch. I'm using CSS > for this new spacing, so non-CSS browsers (e.g. w3m) won't render the > inter-message spacing. I think the colored-link (second message row) > vs. default id (first message row) makes inter-message separation > clear enough in that case. The 2 0.5em:s adds up to 1em between messages and that IMHO makes the messages be too far apart from each other. I changed the padding-top and padding-bottom values to 0.25em which IMHO is better... > Cheers, > Trevor Tomi