Re: more url-utils?

[joakim]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden writes:
>
>> Would the defun below be suitable to include in url-util?
>> You nearly always want to work with the data part of the document.
>
> Perhaps binding something like `url-return-data-only', and then having
> url-retrieve strip the headers before returning the buffer would be
> nice.
>
> My guess is that more than 90% of the users of `url-retrieve' don't care
> about the headers, so having it do the stripping would be convenient.

Yes, normaly you only want the data, and an exception if that doesnt
happen properly. So, your proposal is good. Except a function argument
would expose the interface better IMHO. (But I understand why in
practice a binding might be more feasible. Hmm.)

-- 
Joakim Verona