On Jul 21, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Davide Varvello wrote:
Right, I seconded urlEncoded and urlDecoded
go for it. we will deprecate or let encodeForHTTP for backward compat. My point is: let us steadily improve the situation. And if tomorrow something nicer exists then we just replace and throw away what we did :). Stef
Davide
Norbert Hartl wrote
IMHO that would worsen the problem :)
encodeForHTTP is not a good name. The encoding is defined for URLs and has nothing to do with HTTP. It is mostly called "url safe encoded" or just "url encoded". Doing it similar as base64 I would propose
urlEncoded urlDecoded
or
urlSafeEncoded urlSafeDecoded
my 2 cents,
Norbert
Am 19.07.2012 um 21:47 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse:
Let us fix it and propose a decodeFromHTTP method
Stef
On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Davide Varvello wrote:
Thanks Sven, I was looking for String>>decode..whatever... with no luck :-) Cheers
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/The-opposite-of-encodeForHTTP-tp4640491p4640510.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/The-opposite-of-encodeForHTTP-tp4640491p4641004.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.