Re: Rename `eww' to `web'

[chad]

On 03 Jul 2013, at 18:43, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:
> eww is just as good as Chrome or Firefox/Netscape/Mozilla or Lynx or...

Especially when there are several of them. This particular `new
functionality' in emacs has existed for almost two decades.

> I think it's pretty easy to tell a URL (we already do that in many
> packages), and the user can always use `find-file-literally'.  So I

Unencoded full URL's cannot be valid filenames under the vast
majority of filesystems, including GNU/Linux and macosx. I think
they might theoretically be valid in w32 systems like ntfs, but
many (most?) of those systems already allow the user to enter URLs
where filenames are requested, so it doesn't seem likely to be a
problem there, either.  Anyone know for sure?

> OTOH as Stefan suggested, there is a case for generic commands to do a
> task like encryption or web browsing.  I'm in favor of that, as I
> mentioned, and those commands should be named as generically helpfully
> as possible.

It seems like we just recently built this dispatcher functionality
for sending email from emacs, didn't we?  If not, perhaps it's as
simple as a set of standardized aliases for common functionality,
with the defaults set to a choose-from-a-list function?

~Chad