Re: [Bug-wget] trouble with URL vs local file names

[Micah Cowan]

(answers inline)

Tobias Senz wrote:
> Heja :)
> 
> When using recursive or page requisite downloading local folders are
> created. Is there any way to switch that off without loosing the URL?
> It would make much sense to me for archival if local files were "flat"
> but including as much of the URL as possible.
> But, all files in ONE folder.
> 
> Like so, made up example:
> 
> wget -p -k www.google.de
> 
> creates locally the folders / files
> ./www.google.de
> ./www.google.de/index.html
> ./www.google.de/logos
> ./www.google.de/logos/olympics10-skeleton-hp.png
> 
> I'd prefer if that were ONLY files
> ./address@hidden
> ./address@hidden@olympics10-skeleton-hp.png
> 
> Or a URL like this
> http://www.google.de/csi?v=3&s=webhp&action=&e=17259,17311,22713,23386,23756,23806&ei=JwZ9S-StKYaC_Aatp-z3BA&expi=17259,17311,22713,23386,23756,23806&imc=1&imn=1&imp=1&rt=prt.41,xjsls.93,xjses.163,xjsee.206,xjs.229,ol.468,iml.241
> 
> locally as file name
> address@hidden@address@hidden@address@hidden@action@@address@hidden,17311,22713,23386,23756
> [etc ...]
> 
> How would that be possible?

I'm afraid it isn't, currently.

> And i'm also having trouble with the way files are named locally, the
> "--restrict-file-names=" thingie.
> Is there any way to also block "%" "&" "=" (and possibly others i can't
> think of right now - "+" maybe?) locally as these seem to prevent
> further processing in batch scripts? As mentioned above i'm more of a
> fan of "@" for placeholders. Rarely (never?) used in http, and does not
> seem to make any trouble when scripting.

Wget doesn't currently support arbitrary name restrictions.

-- 
Micah J. Cowan
http://micah.cowan.name/