Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

102950RE: selecting a URL

Expand Messages
  • Gene Kwiecinski
    Mar 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      >>Not to sound flip about it, but there's only so much you can do to guard
      >>against retardery.  If someone *insists* on including, bad enough
      >>spaces, but *punctuation* into filenames and complete urls, then *he's*
      >>the one with the problem.  Garbage in, garbage out.  If the link gets
      >>screwed up so that it's broken (ie, can't click-through it), then too
      >>bad.

      >Well, it is standards-compliant. The same was once said about spaces
      >in filenames, but look how common that is today. You and I may hate
      >it, but so long as the RFC / filesystem supports punctuation in URLs /
      >filenames then we can't complain when users use that feature.

      Well, if an url is split across lines because of a space in a directory/filename, again, that's just too bad. Ditto with urls that happen to require 6 video-lines of text to contain. Hitting tinyurl.com to compress it to something manageable *shouldn't* be a requirement.


      >>I always try to separate urls with at least a space, eg, at the end of a
      >>sentence, so there's no confusion whether/not that trailing dot belongs.

      >Be conservative with what you send, and liberal with waht you receive, no?

      Generally, yeah. The issue is *how* liberal you need to be to receive a valid url.


      >>Me personally, I wouldn't worry about trying to contort a 'vim' script
      >>to deal with crap like that.
      >It depends on what the job was, I suppose.

      Point being that no program, even a 'vim' script, can be perfect, and adding all sorts of preprocessing, postprocessing, regexp hacks, etc., to *try* to make sense of everything some ninny who things that having an entire article-title with ".htm" appended to it is a Good Idea for a weblink, is just foolhardy. The added complexity can break *other* things if you're not careful, obfuscate the clear intent of the code, even open itself up for attacks.


      >>But *publishers* (like wiki) who merge urls with other surrounding
      >>text/punctuation?  That's unforgiveable.  Someone should edit the
      >>page/entry itself to fix it.

      >It's perfectly legal in the standards. You might want to try to change
      >wikipedia policy, however.

      Then they should be prepared to have things like

      The page (http://fooey.com/waycoolarticle.htm) is awesome!

      remain ambiguous, since the opening '(' *might* be spotted and disregarded as not part of the actual url, being before the "http:", but the trailing ')' *can* be considered part of the url or not, since it *would* be a valid part of the title, which is what I thought the OP's issue originally was.

      At the *very* least, use

      The page ( http://fooey.com/waycoolarticle.htm ) is awesome!

      as I got into the habit of doing. Then you can code for parens, squares, quotes, whatever some ninny decides to throw into an url just because it's "legal".

      Again, ain't meaning to sound flip (or surly), but I've really had quite enough of those ninnies who generate garbage as their input data, then wonder why the program/script/filter/whatever chokes on it. Eg, why is the url

      http://fooey.com/AweSome Article About Nothing At All.htm

      put through a filter to convert to a hot-link only makes

      http://fooey.com/AweSome

      the link in question.

      Duh..

      --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
      You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic