Re: Links

[Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>]

Hi Nicolas, Fabrice,

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:30:06PM +0200, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Ideally, url encoded links should have been prefixed with some kind of uri
> > syntax.
> > This way, you could know what to decode and what not.
> 
> The encoded link could be copied from somewhere else. Also, there are
> numerous links in the wild without this prefix.

Would it make sense to "promote" these kind of encoded links to almost
their own sub-types?  I would guess, almost no one enters these encoded
links by hand.  It's either via copy paste in the prompt from
org-insert-link, or by entering [[encoded-link][description]] by hand.
I think it is a reasonable inconvenience to ask the user to prefix it
with something like uri:.  I mostly see advantages for a minor
inconvenience.  

Although, you still have to handle the ambiguous case for existing Org
files.  Unless this double maintenance is cumbersome, I would vote for
introducing such a scheme.

What do others think?

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.