From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] blanks in file names
Message-ID: <20020711083834.M20312@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <200207110200.WAA26141@math.psu.edu> <200207110614.g6B6ExM18574@dave2.dave.tj>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200207110614.g6B6ExM18574@dave2.dave.tj>; from Dave on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:14:59AM -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:38:36 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c924b4d0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:14:59AM -0400, Dave wrote:
> 
> Reply inline:
> 
You make some valid points, but I think they are well in excess of
present requirements.  Not to say that a future OS/GUI will not (have
to) take them into consideration.

You do however confuse URI and HTML and you really shouldn't:


> The only way to have the urlifyfs concept providing a 100% complete
> solution is to use it as the default filesystem for your own stuff.
> The reason?  imagine downloading a file "blah%apos;" from an FTP server;
> now, you download a file "blah'" from an FTP server (which your urlifyfs
> faithfully translates into "blah%apos;" without realizing that it's
> destroying a different file).  Guess what?  You've just clobbered your
> original.  Now, if you're going to use urlifyfs for your own stuff

URI: blah%apos; -> blah%25pos%3b

++L