Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are you trying to solve by changing this around, again? I don't
> see there being a problem with the current code, so I don't understand
> why we want to go changing it.
I don't really like the current data structure and I don't want to
support it in future releases since it is not directly mappable to the
message. For instance, the same URL shows up multiple times with the
current API. I'd like to be able to do things like:
- how many URLs were there originally and what were they?
- what are the list of sites users could likely go to?
(so, canonicalized anchor destinations (ignore the stuff
between <a> and </a> in those cases) plus non-hyperlink "cut and
paste or expect MUA to hyperlinkize" ones in text where there wasn't
a real anchor)
- which URLs don't match their text?
- which URLs were over-encoded and where do *they* ultimately go?
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
