nmh-workers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Nmh-workers] New mh-mime(7) man page

2014-03-14 11:20:38
Playing devil's advocate...

I do appreciate the feedback!

   Character set conversion will only take place if nmh was built with
   icov(3) support.

"iconv".  State how I can determine if this was the case given a binary
installation?  I'm hoping there's a switch on a command or similar that
prints the build configuration.

Right now there is nothing.  Autoconf will always try to compile in
iconv support if we can find it; it's not a user-selectable option.
I'm not sure what the right mechanism is to expose this.  Well, I see that
mhparam exposes stuff lock the locking mechanism, version number, and
TLS/SASL support.  Looks like a good thing to add there.

   In this case a substitution character will be used for the
   characters that cannot be converted.

It's always the same character used for all ones that couldn't be
converted?  Or does it mean turning â??â?? into ""?

Weeell â?¦ I didn't want to get TOO specific, but since you asked â?¦ it's
not always the same character.  Specifically, if it's a filename (like
the Content-Disposition "filename" parameter) it gets converted to an
underscore, because '?' seemed like a lousy default substitution character
in that particular case since it matches a shell wildcard.  But '?' in
that parameter still ends up as a '?', so maybe that's not a valid
concern.  Anyway, more detail than I had intended for this man page.
This was intended as an overview rather than explicit detail; if people
think this is appropriate here rather than in command-specific man pages,
I'd be open to changing that.

s/conjuction/conjunction/.  I'm more used to the convention where the
first time a command is mentioned it is by man page, e.g. "mhlist(1)
will display...".  Afterwards, it's just "mhlist".  Then there is no
need to say "See the... man page" as the reference, including section,
has already been given.

   See the send(1) man page for details...

Likewise, it's "See send(1) for details".  The (1) convention means the
reader knows it's a man page.

Fair enough, I went back and forth on that.  There is not a lot of
consistency I had to go on, but I think you're right and I'll change that.
However, what do people think about the first time a command is mentioned
to give a man page reference?

   SEE ALSO
       nmh(7), mhbuild(1), comp(1), repl(1), whatnow(1), mh-format(5)

Missing full stop.

A period at the end of that list?  I looked, and no nmh man page has
one in a list like that.  Or did you mean something else?

Thank you for the feedback!  It is much appreciated.

--Ken

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>