viewing <> constructs via the web archive

[Joe Buck]

Per writes:
> I am not saying we should mung patches sent to the list;  I am saying
> that you have to mung text when you convert it to html to be stored
> in a mail archive.  Not doing the munging *loses* information,
> because you can no longer tell html directives from text.
> 
> If the goal is that you want to be able to use an html file as
> direct input to patch, well I am sorry, that is just plain bogus.
> You can't do that.  Use the original un-html'd mail message,
> which is still available in the base (non-hypermail) archive.

If disk space is not a problem, one possibility is to save each message
twice, as .txt and .html; munge the .html version as hypermail usually
does (with respect to <, >, & etc), and have the .html version link to
the .txt version.  Alternatively, the .txt version could be saved only
if there is a patch present (the patch program has code to detect this;
I don't know if patch can be used just as a patch-detector rather than
a patch-applier.