Re: [Nmh-workers] Items for nmh 1.7

[norm]

Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> writes:
(10 weeks ago)

>So, here's my thinking.  Traditionally, the job of actually DISPLAYING
>messages has been done by mhl.  It seems to make sense that instead of
>having two utilities (show and mhshow), there be only one utility: show,
>which really uses mhl for it's heavy lifting.
>
>Mhl already has a facility where you can give it information on what
>exactly you want to display.  It would make sense to expand this to
>encompass various MIME parts.  Here are some sample mhl format file
>lines, which I've just shot from the hip and haven't thought about them
>too much:
>
>body:match,ct=text/plain,inline,ctparam{format}="flowed":display,flowed
>body:match,ct=text/plain,inline:display
>body:match,attachment:marker="Part %{part} %{content-type}"
>
>This would let you specify seperate mhl file for replies, and could make
>use of existing infrastructure in repl.
>
>Like I said, I haven't thought about this TOO much.  But that's the
>general idea.

So, ALL nmh responsibility for parsing and extracting mime parts would be in
[what mhl would become]. None would be in show, mhshow, repl, or anywhere else
Correct?

You didn't say so, but I take it that the results of the new program, would
also be available for other, user created, purposes.

I like the basic idea. I like it a lot. But the new mhl would be sufficiently
different that it should have a new name, to avoid backward compatibility
constraints.

"Write programs that do one thing and do it well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy. I urge the community to
explicate Ken's general idea.

    Norman Shapiro