Re: colored citations but not for supercite citations

[Per Abrahamsen]

jidanni@kimo.FiXcomTHiS.tw (Dan Jacobson) writes:

> [I probably should send this to a more specialized list, but no.]
> Comrades, what color do you see below [in your favorite emacs based
> reader system]?
> 
> jake46> Really? 175 foot?
> 
> For messages with standard ">" citations,
> >   one sees
> >>  real neat
> >>> colors

The two first quoted lines ("Really? 175 foot?" and "one sees") were
not colored, while the two next ("real neat" and "colors") were
(incorrectly) ) displayed in the same color.

Gnus colorizations relies on a heap of heuristics, because there are
so many quotation styles in use.  One of the heuristics is to ignore
any single line quotations without an attribution lines.  This rule
sort out *a lot* of false positives, but also cause some false
negatives, as in this example.

> But for citations made with emacs' highly touted "supercite" system, I
> see not these colors, I see the "plain" color.  [Ok, in gnus, but this
> is a great opportunity to check the behaviour of your current mail/news
> reader too.]

Named quotes are in violation of the USEFOR draft standard for Usenet
messages, so this SuperCite feature should be deprecated, at least for
news.  

> By the way, when fixing this, kindly make sure
> larry> talks with one color, and
> bob> talks with a different color, but don't screw up and make
> larry> with a third color, when he has already been asinged color 1 before
> bob> butted in.....

This is displayed correctly, the two "Larry" quotes have one color,
and the two "Bob" quotes have another.