On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Marc Sherman wrote:
> > Hmm. I wonder if it's possible to do that in DocBook? Maybe not. The current
> > docs have a dozen or so "see xxx" index entries, and none of these are
> > present in the new world. I will put this on the list of infelicities to
> > investigate.
I have found the DocBook facilities for "see xxx" and am testing them
out, so I think that's solved.
> You could mark the "no_" and "not_" that appear in 6.7 as index terms, so at
> least they'd refer back to that section. It's not quite as clear as the index
> entry you propose, but at least it puts a no_ entry in the index, which is
> better than nothing (or no_thing, if you prefer :) ).
Thanks for the idea. May do both.
> Now that I've read 6.7, I think I have a bug to report in it. It states that
> "yes", "no", "true" and "false" are the only valid values for a boolean
> option. This is repeated in the documentation of the more option in section
> 15, and I'm guessing it'll be repeated in other boolean/expanded options. I
> thought that "1" and "0" were also valid values?
I'll have to read the code to see it you are right... no, it seems that
the code agrees with the documentation. "1" and "0" *are* recognized
for "condition" conditions, however.
> I'd appreciate it if you did. Of course, I'm already on record as thinking
> you should combine the two docs, which would eliminate the need for that
> script... :)
I have written the script. I do not want to combine the two docs. I
wouldn't want to point ordinary users at the full doc.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
