[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Links
From: |
Suvayu Ali |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Links |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:44:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) |
Hi Nicolas, Fabrice,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:30:06PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Fabrice Popineau <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Ideally, url encoded links should have been prefixed with some kind of uri
> > syntax.
> > This way, you could know what to decode and what not.
>
> The encoded link could be copied from somewhere else. Also, there are
> numerous links in the wild without this prefix.
Would it make sense to "promote" these kind of encoded links to almost
their own sub-types? I would guess, almost no one enters these encoded
links by hand. It's either via copy paste in the prompt from
org-insert-link, or by entering [[encoded-link][description]] by hand.
I think it is a reasonable inconvenience to ask the user to prefix it
with something like uri:. I mostly see advantages for a minor
inconvenience.
Although, you still have to handle the ambiguous case for existing Org
files. Unless this double maintenance is cumbersome, I would vote for
introducing such a scheme.
What do others think?
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.