Mindspillage wrote:
On 11/2/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
Might I suggest an additional feature for mediawiki? How about [{here}] which becomes a difflink to the edit where that tag was inserted? People could add that to their signatures and thus every post of their would be equipped to a handy difflink to an original version.
I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link , actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't add more to the standard sig.
Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is going to be while it's saving?)
- d.
I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link , actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't add more to the standard sig.
Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is going to be while it's saving?)
It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared after every comment.
Angela.
On 11/3/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link , actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't add more to the standard sig.
Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is going to be while it's saving?)
It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared after every comment.
Thats a technical detail that we shouldn't let block achieving a desired outcome. I agree that difflinks are long an ugly. Perhaps it's come time for a special difflink syntax which is nice and compact?
On 03/11/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/3/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared after every comment.
Hm, I admit I hadn't thought of that...
I agree that difflinks are long an ugly. Perhaps it's come time for a special difflink syntax which is nice and compact?
Well, they could be made pretty compact just using templates (or, more sanely, a built-in "variable"). It seems you need the article name when using relative diffs (see my previous message), so a template "nextdiff" of the form:
[{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|diff=next|oldid={{{1}}}}} {{{2}}}]
(first parameter is the pre-change revision, the second the text to display as the link) could appear in the wikisource as:
{{nextdiff|21221469|Diff}}
Make this an inbuilt variable for portability and performance, and combine it with the idea someone mentionned of linking the date in the signature (or part of it?) and it ought not to be too intrusive, I think.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
Angela wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link , actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't add more to the standard sig.
Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is going to be while it's saving?)
It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in the edit text or in diffs.
Obviously, they wouldn't. They aren't part of the comment text.
Timwi
te:On 03/11/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Mindspillage wrote:
On 11/2/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
Might I suggest an additional feature for mediawiki? How about [{here}] which becomes a difflink to the edit where that tag was inserted? People could add that to their signatures and thus every post of their would be equipped to a handy difflink to an original version.
I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link , actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't add more to the standard sig.
Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is going to be while it's saving?)
I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't - and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL for the autoincrement field to autoincrement.
But having spent ages looking at that, I remember that we have functions for doing diffs based on "next revision after this". So, it's not pretty, but presumably a pre save transform (e.g. a signature) could embed a link to a diff between the revision *before* itself and "whatever revision comes next" - which in all but the oddest cases will be the revision you're in the middle of saving... So, sort of like "/index.php?oldid=$lastrevision&direction=next" where $lastrevision is the latest revision actually *saved* of that page.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
Rowan Collins wrote:
I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
- and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL for the autoincrement field to autoincrement. [...etc.etc.etc.]
All throughout this you're assuming that the diff link, or indeed anything that isn't the comment proper, would have to be part of the comment text. I understand this assumption may seem self-evident because this is the way signatures are done on Talk pages now, but from a development point of view, it's a dangerous assumption to make because it will clearly lead to an extremely bad implementation.
Timwi
On 11/4/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Rowan Collins wrote:
I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
- and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL for the autoincrement field to autoincrement. [...etc.etc.etc.]
All throughout this you're assuming that the diff link, or indeed anything that isn't the comment proper, would have to be part of the comment text. I understand this assumption may seem self-evident because this is the way signatures are done on Talk pages now, but from a development point of view, it's a dangerous assumption to make because it will clearly lead to an extremely bad implementation.
I don't agree. We're talking about a new feature which would be useful for a number of things and is somewhat orthogonal to the threads discussion here. However, it would also be useful for threads so long as people make a difflink containing signature a part of their comment. I don't think that it's an unreasonable request... What it might get us to is a 90% solution which reduces the cost of change detection, ... which mostly kills the arguments about comment alteration without really changing what we are doing.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org