Hi list On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 11:26 -0400, Dimi Paun wrote: > On Thu, September 21, 2006 10:47 am, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > One solution would be to use some other prefix than / for > > non-local files, and to use some form of escaping only for non-utf8 > > chars and non-printables. This works since we only handle absolute > > pathnames, so anything not starting with / is out of band. > > I think this is a sippery slope -- a new form of URI which is > the same but a bit different will be very confusing. I took the > general population 10 years to grok a tiny bit of the URI concept, > and most people still don't get it. The techinical points about > escaping and so on are so foreign to most folks that they will > be utterly confused (and very annoyed) that they can't enter > an unescaped URI. > > I agree that the fully escaped URI is insane for an interface > with the user. That's clearly just an internal notation. Howerver, > for folks that understand URI enough to type them directly in > text (which is very seldom even for people that do understand > them simply because they are usually long enough that typos are > very likely), we can just simply accept improper URIs unescaped > and escape them internally ourselves. Whatever we do, this is not > really a use case that's common, no need to optimize for it.
IRI's can be used for this. IRIs are directly mapped to URIs by escaping. > > Complicated URIs like FTP need graphical support to be usable > by mortals (we have server, port, login, password, encoding, > directory, filename). How about we have the backend register > some sort of edit dialog that can present all this information > graphically rather than (just) a textual encoding? > -- Alex Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ gnome-vfs-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
