Brian Wightman <midlife...@wightmanfam.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > > probably not a problem, since unescaping should be idempotent (in contrast > > to > > escaping ;-) ) but why do it twice? > > I am not sure I am reading this correctly - I am reading this as > unescaping a url-encoded twice should give the same results as > unescaping the same url-encoded string once. If that is what you are > saying, I would disagree. Taking a string similar to the one provided > originally: > > Did%2520France%2520Cause%2520the%2520Great%2520Depression.pdf > > would be unescaped as > > Did%20France%20Cause%20the%20Great%20Depression.pdf > > and a second unescape would generate > > Did France Cause the Great Depression.pdf > > Hopefully, I am just reading your statement wrong :-) >
Nope - you read it right and it (the statement, not the reading) is wrong. But I'm not sure what the implications to the code are: do we have to unescape repeatedly until there are no more % signs in there? Then the final call to org-make-link-string would do one escaping pass and that would be that? My URL fu is weak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Nick
