>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 ââ into ""? Weeell ⦠I didn't want to get TOO specific, but since you asked ⦠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 [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
