> > Um, there was no disagreement in this thread with Tones. > > Tones' initial post was about getting pretty links when the URL encoding > are ugly. I think that's great. *(Already a usual habit of mine, just > grabbing them links from the "Open" sidebar tab instead.)* >
It sounded to me like Tones also had an opinion on the existence of "ugly URLs," which is why I responded from back there, but maybe that was just me misreading the post. > [A]re you both suggesting that it would be better to instead change URL > encoding so they don't have things like "#" and "%20" in them ? > No, I'm suggesting that when one has an opportunity to choose the format of a URL, one should choose one that uses as few internal IDs and special characters (since those turn into %-encoding) as possible. (I don't see any problem with # in itself, that has a clearly defined meaning and isn't ugly.) I do not think that TiddlyWiki is doing anything wrong here – I was just trying to explain what some people might consider an ugly URL. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/783f4716-b5a2-4093-b5de-6484edbbb0a5n%40googlegroups.com.
