Re: Module name mangling

[Martin Grabmueller]

> From: Marius Vollmer <address@hidden>
> Date: 30 Jan 2001 01:52:01 +0100
> 
> I don't agree (yet).  We can certainly extend the list as we learn
> about problematic cases, but each time we change the encoding of
> module names as file names, everybody would have to check and possibly
> rename their *.scm files.  This would be no good.

[snip]

> > We could try to find a final solution now, but it is unlikely to
> > find one anyway,
> 
> I thought that the URL encoding would be `final' in the sense that we
> can safely assume that any odd-ball system that is not catered for by
> this encoding can be ignored.  I still like to know whether the URL
> encoding can do this for us.

The RFC for URL-encoding specifies so-called `safe' characters, which
do not need encoding.  These are alphanumeric characters an a few
others, like `-', `_' etc.  Unfortunaly I don't have the RFC number
handy, but I will try to figure that out while at university today.
Then I'll post the result of my search.

When we have a list of safe characters, the only thing we need to
agree upon is how we encode the unsafe ones. Am I right?

Regards,
  'martin
-- 
Martin Grabmueller              address@hidden
http://www.pintus.de/mgrabmue/  address@hidden on EFnet