Re: SSL options

2005-04-22 Thread johannes
On Thursday 21 April 2005 19:07, Tony wrote:
> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> > The question is what should we do for 1.10?  Document the
> > unreadable names and cryptic values, and have to support
> > them until eternity?
>
> My vote is to change them to more reasonable syntax (as you suggested
> earlier in the note) for 1.10 and include the new syntax in the
> documentation. However, I think wget should to continue to support the old
> options and syntax as alternatives in case people have included them in
> scripts.

I agree. I don't believe it is absolutely necessary to change the names, 
though. I would probably copy&paste them, or look to bash-completion for 
help.

I think removing them is a bad idea. Even if very few people use them, it good 
to have them. Personally, I've used --sslprotocol a couple of times. IMO, all 
these choices are what makes Linux console utils so powerful.

And finally, I really miss the documentation of these features. I was really 
surprised when I found features documented in "wget --help" but not in the 
man-pages (I would have expected otherwise).

That's my two cents, anyway. Keep up the good work.

-Johannes


Re: SSL options

2005-04-22 Thread Hrvoje Niksic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I think removing them is a bad idea. Even if very few people use
> them, it good to have them. Personally, I've used --sslprotocol a
> couple of times.  IMO, all these choices are what makes Linux
> console utils so powerful.

You're misunderstanding me: I'm not proposing to remove the options,
simply to rename them to more sensible syntax and remove only the old
(undocumented and therefore unofficial) names.


RE: SSL options

2005-04-21 Thread Tony Lewis
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:

> The question is what should we do for 1.10?  Document the
> unreadable names and cryptic values, and have to support
> them until eternity?

My vote is to change them to more reasonable syntax (as you suggested
earlier in the note) for 1.10 and include the new syntax in the
documentation. However, I think wget should to continue to support the old
options and syntax as alternatives in case people have included them in
scripts.

Tony