From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suvayu Ali Subject: Re: Links Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:44:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20150617064456.GB28351@chitra.no-ip.org> References: <87wpz3akc4.fsf@selenimh.access.network> <877fr39w9t.fsf@selenimh.access.network> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51497) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z575s-0005hM-Ba for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:45:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z575n-0005Pp-1i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:45:04 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]:32940) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z575m-0005Ph-Qj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:44:58 -0400 Received: by wgez8 with SMTP id z8so28228683wge.0 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877fr39w9t.fsf@selenimh.access.network> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Cc: Fabrice Popineau Hi Nicolas, Fabrice, On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:30:06PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Fabrice Popineau writes: > > > Ideally, url encoded links should have been prefixed with some kind of uri > > syntax. > > This way, you could know what to decode and what not. > > The encoded link could be copied from somewhere else. Also, there are > numerous links in the wild without this prefix. Would it make sense to "promote" these kind of encoded links to almost their own sub-types? I would guess, almost no one enters these encoded links by hand. It's either via copy paste in the prompt from org-insert-link, or by entering [[encoded-link][description]] by hand. I think it is a reasonable inconvenience to ask the user to prefix it with something like uri:. I mostly see advantages for a minor inconvenience. Although, you still have to handle the ambiguous case for existing Org files. Unless this double maintenance is cumbersome, I would vote for introducing such a scheme. What do others think? -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.