Ian Abbott wrote: > [snipped]
> I'd say ignore my previous "proposal", fix what's there already, and then maybe > tune the safe/unsafe character handling for > particular file-systems (with options to override this) later. I'm not a developer, but it seems to me that a problem is more general than just safe/unsafe character handling/mapping. >From my user's point of view there are two types of resources: remote and local. Both types of resources have names. Remote resource names I type when I invoke wget and I see them inside HTML cross references. Local resource names I see (or wish to see) in my local file system after wget finishes. Remote resources may have naming conventions different than local ones. What I need as a user that is an unambiguous mapping between remote and local resources. I don't mind about any internal representation. I only want to know rules which allow me to find a local resource which corresponds to a remote one and vice versa. >From HTTP perspective I'd expect wget not only a) to download remote resources, b) assign them local names and c) save them locally. I'd also expect it 6) to fix cross references in locally saved resources. Less or more these all have already done. >From FTP perspective I'd still expect a), b) and c). And there is also one point where cross referencing is used. It is .listing file. So I's expect the same behaviour as in HTTP case. Unfortunately at the moment, wget saves remote names to .listing file but it doesn't fix every local names properly. For example, it fixes space characters in local directory names to '%20' but leave them untouched in local file names. And wget always forgets about that when it reloads the same remote resource next time. It doesn't used the naming conversion rules in reverse direction to determine that it has already loaded the resource. Details I'm giving in separate message. So, I'd try to summarize my very long monolog (forgive me for it): 1. Well-defined mapping rules are necessary (possibly tuneable by users), so Ian's proposal looks very promising; 2. Two way unambiguous conversion remote->local and local->remote will allow wget a) not to miss any resources and b) not to do the same job twice. 3. The same behaviour for both HTTP and FTP. Thank you for your patience. Alexey
