Language for preference troubles

[Adeodato Simó]

* David Shaw [Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:09:10 -0500]:

> I thought about saying "unincluded" rather than "unavailable", but
> there are three reasons why a given algorithm might not be available:

> 1) The algorithm is available, but the user used --disable-cipher-algo
>    or the like in their gpg.conf file or on the command line.

> 2) The algorithm comes with GnuPG, but this particular copy doesn't
>    have it.

> 3) The algorithm doesn't come with GnuPG at all (IDEA, or some new
>    algorithm that hasn't been added to OpenPGP yet).

> "unavailable" covers all of these, but "unincluded" only covers 2 & 3.

    Ah, so our points are pretty different: I was suggesting a different
    message for *each* reason, instead of one explanation for them all.

    I realize, however, that (a) it is openly arguable which of those
    two approaches is "better" and (b) depending of the GnuPG internals
    (which of course are unknown for me) it may even be impossible or
    quite difficult to distinguish which of 1), 2) & 3) is the case.

    Cheers.

-- 
Adeodato Simó (a.k.a. thibaut)
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | IM: my_dato [jabber.org] | PK: DA6AE621
    Listening to: Javier Álvarez - La balada de Lois & Clark
 
When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20040215/37fe6934/attachment.bin