Hi Nicolas, Fabrice, On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:30:06PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popin...@gmail.com> 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.
