Right, I seconded urlEncoded and urlDecoded Davide
Norbert Hartl wrote > > IMHO that would worsen the problem :) > > encodeForHTTP is not a good name. The encoding is defined for URLs and has > nothing to do with HTTP. It is mostly called "url safe encoded" or just > "url encoded". Doing it similar as base64 I would propose > > urlEncoded > urlDecoded > > or > > urlSafeEncoded > urlSafeDecoded > > my 2 cents, > > Norbert > > Am 19.07.2012 um 21:47 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse: > >> Let us fix it and propose a decodeFromHTTP method >> >> Stef >> >> On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Davide Varvello wrote: >> >>> Thanks Sven, >>> I was looking for String>>decode..whatever... with no luck :-) >>> Cheers >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/The-opposite-of-encodeForHTTP-tp4640491p4640510.html >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> > -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/The-opposite-of-encodeForHTTP-tp4640491p4641004.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
