* Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-26 21:04]: > Ick. Is that even a legal URL?
I have no idea, but it works when I paste it into Firefox. > One idea would be to use an exclusive, rather than inclusive, regexp > to find URLs. Consider a URL to be anything starting with "http" and > terminated by whitespace or a few special characters (say, ["',.?>]). > This seems more failure-prone, though, as I can't possibly predict every > convention people use to terminate URLs (e.g., what about » or ¿; I'm > sure there are more I don't know). Yes, I agree that it'll be hard to get it right all the time. I'd personally assume that ' was part of the URL but for example » isn't; but I might be wrong, and any rule you put into urlscan will get it wrong in some cases. :/ > Another option would be to add a command to "lengthen" a match, telling > urlscan to update the currently selected match with the immediately > following character (or maybe the next character & everything else that > looks like part of a URL). This might be the best solution, since weird > URLs like that seem like an oddity, and urlscan will probably make > inevitable errors in other situations anyway. Something like this would probably be best. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/
