On 03/11/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/3/05, Angela <beesley(a)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]