[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#19556: eww: make URI rewriting fully customizable
From: |
Ivan Shmakov |
Subject: |
bug#19556: eww: make URI rewriting fully customizable |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:30:18 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) |
>>>>> Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> writes:
>>> FWIW, removing eww-search-words from the hook allows one to type
>>> something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free software RET
>>> (note the blank) at the prompt and be with that.
>> That sounds like a bug that should be fixed.
>> I don't see a use case for letting users customise this stuff, and
>> it sounds like it would be error-prone.
> This is still my view, so I'm closing this bug report.
I believe that when there’s a disagreement on how (and if) the
feature should be implemented, the respective bugs should not
generally be closed, although they surely may be tagged
‘wontfix’ at the maintainer’s discretion.
The justification is that the maintainer cannot decide what
features /the users/ desire – and it’s what the bug tracking
system is ought to reflect – but only the features that he or
she volunteers – or not – to actually implement and support.
JFTR, my feature request is as follows. First, the “automatic”
use of a search engine may lead to inadvertent information
disclosure, should the user type (or yank) some text into the
URI prompt by accident (and it happened to me more than once.)
Explicitly setting eww-search-prefix to nil will work around
this issue, although as currently implemented, the respective
code path doesn’t lead to a clear error message. (Neither the
eww-search-prefix defcustom suggests nil as a possible value.)
The other part is that the authors of EWW extensions may benefit
from an easy way to hook into the EWW URI handling. The patch
I’ve suggested does provide such a way, although implements it
badly, and so should not be used as it is.
--
FSF associate member #7257 http://am-1.org/~ivan/ … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A