Re: Your last change to browse-url is bogus.

[Johannes Weiner]

Hi Micha,

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:13:42AM +0200, Michaël Cadilhac wrote:
> I'd suggest to revert this change or, if it's for the sake of code
> factoring, (what was the first purpose, by the way?)

Yes, code factoring.

> use something like this:

> --- browse-url.el     12 Sep 2007 10:49:04 +0200      1.61
> +++ browse-url.el     12 Sep 2007 11:09:27 +0200      
[...]
> -  (setq file (browse-url-encode-url file))
> +  (setq file (browse-url-encode-url file "[*\"()',=;? ]" 'encode-percent))
[...]
> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
[...]
> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
[...]
> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
[...]
> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
[...]
> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
[...]
> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))

These use mostly the same argument.  Can't we generalize this?  Would it hurt
the callsites if they all would use "[*\"()',=;? ]"?

        Hannes

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature