Re: more url-utils?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Oh, wait, no, because I wanted url-fetch to insert the result in the
>> current-buffer, rather than creating a brand new buffer.
> Yeah, that makes sense, perhaps.  In the async case too?

Yes.

> Hm.  Are there any charset issues?

I don't know what you're referring to.

> I mean, if you're fetching an image, it's a binary thing, and if you
> want to allow already having stuff in the buffer, there might be
> issues...

url-fetch could be defined to replace the current content of the buffer,
if that's deemed necessary (i.e. mostly if it needs to use
set-buffer-multibyte, which should ideally only ever be used on empty
buffers).


        Stefan