>>Not to sound flip about it, but there's only so much you can do to guard
>>against retardery. If someone *insists* on including, bad enough
>>spaces, but *punctuation* into filenames and complete urls, then *he's*
>>the one with the problem. Garbage in, garbage out. If the link gets
>>screwed up so that it's broken (ie, can't click-through it), then too
>>bad.
>Well, it is standards-compliant. The same was once said about spaces
>in filenames, but look how common that is today. You and I may hate
>it, but so long as the RFC / filesystem supports punctuation in URLs /
>filenames then we can't complain when users use that feature.
Well, if an url is split across lines because of a space in a
directory/filename, again, that's just too bad. Ditto with urls that happen to
require 6 video-lines of text to contain. Hitting tinyurl.com to compress it
to something manageable *shouldn't* be a requirement.
>>I always try to separate urls with at least a space, eg, at the end of a
>>sentence, so there's no confusion whether/not that trailing dot belongs.
>Be conservative with what you send, and liberal with waht you receive, no?
Generally, yeah. The issue is *how* liberal you need to be to receive a valid
url.
>>Me personally, I wouldn't worry about trying to contort a 'vim' script
>>to deal with crap like that.
>It depends on what the job was, I suppose.
Point being that no program, even a 'vim' script, can be perfect, and adding
all sorts of preprocessing, postprocessing, regexp hacks, etc., to *try* to
make sense of everything some ninny who things that having an entire
article-title with ".htm" appended to it is a Good Idea for a weblink, is just
foolhardy. The added complexity can break *other* things if you're not
careful, obfuscate the clear intent of the code, even open itself up for
attacks.
>>But *publishers* (like wiki) who merge urls with other surrounding
>>text/punctuation? That's unforgiveable. Someone should edit the
>>page/entry itself to fix it.
>It's perfectly legal in the standards. You might want to try to change
>wikipedia policy, however.
Then they should be prepared to have things like
The page (http://fooey.com/waycoolarticle.htm) is awesome!
remain ambiguous, since the opening '(' *might* be spotted and disregarded as
not part of the actual url, being before the "http:", but the trailing ')'
*can* be considered part of the url or not, since it *would* be a valid part of
the title, which is what I thought the OP's issue originally was.
At the *very* least, use
The page ( http://fooey.com/waycoolarticle.htm ) is awesome!
as I got into the habit of doing. Then you can code for parens, squares,
quotes, whatever some ninny decides to throw into an url just because it's
"legal".
Again, ain't meaning to sound flip (or surly), but I've really had quite enough
of those ninnies who generate garbage as their input data, then wonder why the
program/script/filter/whatever chokes on it. Eg, why is the url
http://fooey.com/AweSome Article About Nothing At All.htm
put through a filter to convert to a hot-link only makes
http://fooey.com/AweSome
the link in question.
Duh..
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
