I'll answer you here even if you point to somewhere else - hope this will not confuse too much other people.
Not wanting to contribe to the frustration of losing something you've been working hard on composing, I won't be adding the link w/o target="_new". My conscience won't allow me.
What can I reply to a conscience issue? Nothing, but I want to note that every page here in PM, even those devoted to writing replies, is full of links that you can click to lose your work. Clicking is something that involves your active partecipation in putting the mouse over the link (or moving around with tabs or whatever), then click (hitting enter).
I personally don't like all that Windows "Are you sure?" approach, and appreciate much more a Unix "rm" which lets me do a mess with my disk but doesn't bother me each run, but I understand that's a matter of conscience taste. In this particular case, I think that this kind of protection is unnecessary, because I've lots of similar ways to spoil my work on the reply.
I only asked to add two links to the whole bunch, observing that, IMVHO, they would come quite useful for me being contextually well defined: one to the OP, and one to the replied message.
I really don't see how they could come so dangerous, but I'd like to make a further proposal: why don't add a configurable feature in User Settings sounding "Show links to OP when replying"? If this is unchecked by default I have to take full responsability in activating it, thus making your conscience free :)
Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')
Don't fool yourself.
| [reply] |
I never proposed an "Are you sure?" dialogue, nor any dialogue at all; so I don't agree with your analogy. I much prefer "undo" to "Are you sure?" and I don't mind when "delete" deletes things. I do greatly mind when "this link provided for your reference while previewing" throws away what I'm previewing. I replied to the "there are other links already" argument in the other thread(s).
But, after some contemplation, I like the idea of having the user settings option control whether target="_blank" is used certain places and just always have the link to the item you are replying to (I don't see much point in also having a separate link to the author you are replying to, just FYI). I could see people wanting target="_blank" to be the default for "comment on" links, for example, or wanting <base target="_blank"> when previewing so all links are "safe".
(Update: /me idly wonders if CSS allows customization of target=.)
But I'll let someone else implement whatever of this. I'll concentrate on getting the new node cache actually in use, for now.
| [reply] |
My fault to use that hyperbolic analogy, what I really meant is that I don't like software which (I feel that) becomes overprotecting at the cost of reduced flexibility. Unluckly my English is quite "Italian" and many times I don't seem to have a successful communication of my thoughts. This seems to creep in also at this point:
I don't see much point in also having a separate link to the author you are replying to, just FYI.
I agree, there's no point in linking the author - I'd like two links, one to the message I'm commenting on, the other to the root message of the thread. Unluckily again, OP seems an overloaded abbreviation, and I meant the "Original Post", not the "Original Poster".
But I'm happy that I made something good, at least, with my counter-proposal on User Settings. If others like the idea, I'm confident it'll not be thrown in /dev/null.
Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')
Don't fool yourself.
| [reply]
[d/l] |