Doc typos and a question

Doc typos and a question

[Norman Walsh]

A couple of typos in gnus-faq.texi, I think:

*** gnus-faq.texi       2001/11/15 08:43:55     6.6
--- gnus-faq.texi       2002/01/04 18:04:55
***************
*** 263,267 ****
  
  @kbd{C-c C-y} grabs the previous message and prefixes each line with
! @code{ail-indentation-spaces} spaces or @code{mail-yank-prefix} if that is
  non-nil, unless you have set your own @code{mail-citation-hook}, which will
  be called to do the job.
--- 263,267 ----
  
  @kbd{C-c C-y} grabs the previous message and prefixes each line with
! @code{message-indentation-spaces} spaces or @code{message-yank-prefix} if that is
  non-nil, unless you have set your own @code{mail-citation-hook}, which will
  be called to do the job.

Also, the FAQ speaks of mail-yank-ignored-headers but the only place I
see that in the *.el files is in a comment. Perhaps
`message-ignored-cited-headers' was intended?

Now for my question, what's the intended difference between
message-yank-prefix and message-yank-cited-prefix? I found the typos
while I was trying to figure out why blank lines were being prefixed
differently than non-blank lines (since I upgraded to Oort).
Turns out (I think) it was because I wasn't (re)setting message-yank-cited-prefix.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As the old hermit of Prague, that never
http://nwalsh.com/            | saw pen and ink, very wittily said to
                              | the niece of King Gorboduc, 'That that
                              | is, is'.--Shakespeare

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Simon Josefsson]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

> Also, the FAQ speaks of mail-yank-ignored-headers but the only place I
> see that in the *.el files is in a comment. Perhaps
> `message-ignored-cited-headers' was intended?

The FAQ in the manual is very old.  Maybe we should remove it?  Or at
least incorporate new versions (semi-)automatically?

> Now for my question, what's the intended difference between
> message-yank-prefix and message-yank-cited-prefix?

One is used to cite cited text, the other to cite non-cited text.
Maybe message-yank-cited-prefix should be initialized to be
message-yank-prefix except the last whitespace, if present.

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

> A couple of typos in gnus-faq.texi, I think:

Thanks for the patch; I've applied it to Oort Gnus v0.05 (i. e., CVS).

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> The FAQ in the manual is very old.  Maybe we should remove it?  Or at
> least incorporate new versions (semi-)automatically?

It would be best if we could get a new texinfo version of the FAQ
included.  It's being maintained in HTML, I believe.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Norman Walsh]

/ Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
|> Now for my question, what's the intended difference between
|> message-yank-prefix and message-yank-cited-prefix?
|
| One is used to cite cited text, the other to cite non-cited text.

Does this boil down to: "one is used for blank lines and one is used for
non-blank lines?" If not, what does it mean to "cite non-cited text"?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Man is in love and loves what vanishes,
http://nwalsh.com/            | / What more is there to say?--W. B.
                              | Yeats

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Simon Josefsson]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

> / Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> was heard to say:
> | Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
> |> Now for my question, what's the intended difference between
> |> message-yank-prefix and message-yank-cited-prefix?
> |
> | One is used to cite cited text, the other to cite non-cited text.
>
> Does this boil down to: "one is used for blank lines and one is used for
> non-blank lines?"

Not in general, no.

> If not, what does it mean to "cite non-cited text"?

message-yank-cited-prefix is used if the text that is to be cited is
already cited, e.g.:

> foo bar

instead of

foo bar.

This is so that you get this look:

>>>> foo bar
>>> bar foo
>> foo bar
> bar foo

foo bar

instead of

> > > > foo bar
> > > bar foo
> > foo bar
> bar foo

foo bar

which seems to be suggested by RFC 2822 or USEFOR (or maybe both).

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Justin Sheehy]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:
>
>> The FAQ in the manual is very old.  Maybe we should remove it?  Or at
>> least incorporate new versions (semi-)automatically?
>
> It would be best if we could get a new texinfo version of the FAQ
> included.  It's being maintained in HTML, I believe.

Your belief is correct.  It has been maintained in HTML since well
before I took over maintainership of it.

Producing a new texinfo version has been on my todo list forever, and
I keep managing to not do it.  When I get to it (soon, I hope), I
don't know whether I'll do another one-shot conversion or if I'll
switch over the canonical form.

I'm open to fairly sweeping changes.  I don't have any real objections
to texinfo.  Here are my real requirements if the format was to change:

  - no major hassles to maintain, preferably in a single file
  - easy to convert to nicely-browsable single-file HTML
  - easy to convert into minidigest format (the monthly posting)

The second and third shouldn't be all that big a deal, since one ought
to be able to write code to do that sort of conversion even if there
is no built-in program to do so.  However, the time required to write
that is likely to increase my personal level of procrastination.

I don't feel strongly about the formatting language.  Being able to
easily keep the version in the manual from being too out-of-date would
definitely be nice, though...

-Justin

 

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Simon Josefsson]

Justin Sheehy <justin@iago.org> writes:

> Producing a new texinfo version has been on my todo list 
> forever, and I keep managing to not do it.  When I get to it 
> (soon, I hope), I don't know whether I'll do another one-shot 
> conversion or if I'll switch over the canonical form.
>
> I'm open to fairly sweeping changes.  I don't have any real 
> objections to texinfo.  Here are my real requirements if the 
> format was to change:
>
>   - no major hassles to maintain, preferably in a single file 
>   - easy to convert to nicely-browsable single-file HTML easy to 
>   - convert into minidigest format (the monthly posting)

I think texinfo does all this, plus makes it possible to browse it 
in Emacs.  I'm not sure what the minidigest format is though 
(table of contents?).

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Justin Sheehy <justin@iago.org> writes:

> I'm open to fairly sweeping changes.  I don't have any real objections
> to texinfo.  Here are my real requirements if the format was to change:
>
>   - no major hassles to maintain, preferably in a single file
>   - easy to convert to nicely-browsable single-file HTML
>   - easy to convert into minidigest format (the monthly posting)

I think you can do all of those things (and more :-) with TeXinfo.

> I don't feel strongly about the formatting language.  Being able to
> easily keep the version in the manual from being too out-of-date would
> definitely be nice, though...

Yup.  If you did it in TeXinfo, you could also just stick it into the
Gnus CVS and we would always have an up-to-the-minute version of the
FAQ in the Gnus manual.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Justin Sheehy]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> I think you can do all of those things (and more :-) with TeXinfo.

Great.  I've only done minor edits of previously-existing texinfo docs
before, so I'll have to go spend some time reading some docs.  I've
used TeX before, so I suspect it won't be all too hard.

> Yup.  If you did it in TeXinfo, you could also just stick it into the
> Gnus CVS and we would always have an up-to-the-minute version of the
> FAQ in the Gnus manual.

Ah, that would be good.

Okay then.  I will definitely convert to texinfo.  Hopefully within
the next week or two.  If I haven't done so, feel free to poke me via
email; I tend to get distracted by work.

-Justin

 

Re: Doc typos and a question

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Justin Sheehy <justin@iago.org> writes:

> Great.  I've only done minor edits of previously-existing texinfo docs
> before, so I'll have to go spend some time reading some docs.  I've
> used TeX before, so I suspect it won't be all too hard.

TeXinfo doesn't really look much like TeX.  :-)  The good news is that
it's much simpler.

> Okay then.  I will definitely convert to texinfo.  Hopefully within
> the next week or two.

Cool.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen