G'day Rolf,
My aim was not to enumerate all of the better choices; but rather, as stated, to provide a (singular) "better choice". The main thrust of that paragraph was absolute vs. relative links.
Years ago, on a number of occasions, I fell afoul of using [node_name] due to some conflict; e.g. a SoPW page and a Monk's username shared the same "node_name". Since then, I've preferred links which contain a "node_id"; this makes the link unique and I don't have to spend any time checking for, and possibly making adjustments to handle, conflicts.
I will often use both a "node_id" and a "node_name"; e.g. [id://node_id|node_name]. Examples include:
For some years, replies have included a [id://node_id] text; this makes it very easy (via copy-paste) to generate content like:
Refer to my [id://some_id|first] and [id://other_id|third] responses.
There are many ways to provide a link. "What shortcuts can I use for linking to other information?" has details. Here's some examples:
I wouldn't consider [The Hermitage] to be the "second best choice". I'd rank all of those containing a "node_id" as superior.
— Ken
In reply to Re^5: Level Proposal
by kcott
in thread Level Proposal
by footpad
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |