https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29497
--- Comment #7 from Bergi <[email protected]> 2011-09-28 15:19:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > In the situation as it is, you will > > have to use [//wikipedia.org //wikipedia.org] instead of just > > //wikipedia.org. > > This is worse, and explizitly the fullurl:-thing will break a lot. So I > > think, > > at least for our own domain(s) we have to enable un-bracketed links. > > > Yes, using {{fullurl:}} to produce a clean link doesn't work any more. This is > known and deliberate. Deliberated? It don't think this is good practice. Apart from breaking existing links, it will make linking more user-unfriendly. Who would use [{{fullurl:xyz|abc}} http(s)://xyz?abc]? As a only-fullurl-link doesn't work any more, users will copypaste a protocoll-absolute, correctly (better: as intended) parsed link. Is that userfriendly? > > Allowing only for spezific domains (settable in > > config?) would make it more complex than it must be. wgUrlProtocols (the js > > variable) would need to provide the domains for which protocol and which > > link > > syntax will work. Urghh. I think it is much cleaner to allow every site, > > even > > if there may happen accidents. > We do allow every site, where are you getting this idea that we're not? Yes, but not both link formats. I said that enabling the bracketless format for just a configurable set of sites (the proposed knowing-for-sure domains) wouldn't be better, why don't we allow just everything? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
