Improve the consistency of current presentation of paths to user.

What’s the Problem?

What “https://github.com/files-community/Files/issues/9725#:~:text=BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART commented now-,what’s the problem%3F,-How paths are” describes.

Solution/Idea

Consequently, similarly to what “https://github.com/files-community/Files/issues/8465#issue-1147245420” proposes, I suggest that the format of presented paths be different. However, dissimilarly, my proposition affects all paths that this software presents/provides.

I propose:

1. 1stly, what “https://github.com/files-community/Files/issues/8465” describes: replacement of the backward-slash with the forward-slash when paths are presented to the user.
2. 2ndly, what “https://github.com/files-community/Files/issues/9725#issue-1338304704” describes: to prepend the necessary components to convert paths to file: Uniform Resource Identifiers to paths when presented to the user.

These suggestions have been combined because the 1st is partially dependent upon the 2nd.

Alternatives

What “https://github.com/files-community/Files/issues/9725#:~:text=by this format.-,alternatives,-Nothing alternative provides” describes.

Priorities

What “https://github.com/files-community/Files/issues/9725#:~:text=provides similar consistency.-,priorities,-I do not” describes.

Files Version

No response

Windows Version

No response

Comments

The forward-slash is represented by HyperText Markup Language code “&#47”, whereas the backward-slash is represented by HyperText Markup Language code “&#92”.

I utilize “slash” rather than “solidus” because “http://english.stackexchange.com/a/10996/343952” states that “slash” is correct for the purpose that I have utilized “slash” despite “http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10993#comment18558_10996” correctly stating that Unicode incorrectly ignores this distinction. I apologize for any consequent confusion.

[rokejulianlockhart]

@yaichenbaum, that is easily enough for me. I might be able to contribute it eventually.

[yaira2]

You can create a new issue for that but to be clear, I’m not committing to implementing it. What I can say is that the refactor will enable this if someone is willing to contribute it.