Hi Johannes!

Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:

>> > 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?

Yeah, it seems like a good idea : I already added encode-percent, which
had this role but didn't integrate the regexps.  But it's true that if
in 2013 a new web-browser adds a special meaning for `*' in its
executable parameter, it'll not hurt to encode it for all the other
web-browsers.

Great, so we're now here :