On Thu, September 21, 2006 10:47 am, Alexander Larsson wrote: > One solution would be to use some other prefix than / for > non-local files, and to use some form of escaping only for non-utf8 > chars and non-printables. This works since we only handle absolute > pathnames, so anything not starting with / is out of band.
I think this is a sippery slope -- a new form of URI which is the same but a bit different will be very confusing. I took the general population 10 years to grok a tiny bit of the URI concept, and most people still don't get it. The techinical points about escaping and so on are so foreign to most folks that they will be utterly confused (and very annoyed) that they can't enter an unescaped URI. I agree that the fully escaped URI is insane for an interface with the user. That's clearly just an internal notation. Howerver, for folks that understand URI enough to type them directly in text (which is very seldom even for people that do understand them simply because they are usually long enough that typos are very likely), we can just simply accept improper URIs unescaped and escape them internally ourselves. Whatever we do, this is not really a use case that's common, no need to optimize for it. Complicated URIs like FTP need graphical support to be usable by mortals (we have server, port, login, password, encoding, directory, filename). How about we have the backend register some sort of edit dialog that can present all this information graphically rather than (just) a textual encoding? -- Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lattica, Inc. _______________________________________________ gnome-vfs-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
