Hi Micha,

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:38:51PM +0200, Michaël Cadilhac wrote:
> >> --- browse-url.el	12 Sep 2007 10:49:04 +0200	1.61
> >> +++ browse-url.el	12 Sep 2007 11:09:27 +0200	
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq file (browse-url-encode-url file))
> >> +  (setq file (browse-url-encode-url file "[*\"()',=;? ]" 'encode-percent))
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> >> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> >> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> >> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> >> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> >> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
> > [...]
> >> -  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url))
> >> +  (setq url (browse-url-encode-url url "[,)$]"))
> >
> > These use mostly the same argument.  Can't we generalize this?  Would it hurt
> > the callsites if they all would use "[*\"()',=;? ]"?
> 
> Yes, it will.  A ``confusing char'' is just something Firefox or others
> can consider as a URL separator or as a variable or something when the
> website is passed as an argument to the executable, AFAIU.
> 
> `?=*' for example are not usually ``confusing''.  The only place those
> chars are to be converted is when we browse for a file (thus when `?='
> don't have their special meanings).

Ah, okay.  So what about an (&optional filename) for this function?
And if it's true, the character set to be translated is "[*\"()',=;? ]" and
percent is also encoded.  If ommited (nil), just "[,)$]" will be translated.

How does that sound?

	Hannes