<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200907130414.03299.5ko@5ko.fr" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That's certainly an excellent suggestion whcih I will probably follow
anyway!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Does it seem to work? We could probably help you write a custom LinkPage()
function which applies the default $MakePageNamePatterns on selected
WikiGroups, and some $CustomPageNamePatterns on all other pages.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes it works - although wit the obvious slight hitches where you get
some overlap and need to show some Site page with a link to a non Site
page. These are rare in my case<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200907130414.03299.5ko@5ko.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If the original links work in the default installation, I don't see this as
an "issue" that should be "fixed". :-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't really see why not?<br>
<br>
Again I think you are shooting from a hypothetical hip and you haven't
looked at the situation? (Although concede I could be talking rubbish
since I remember you were doing a load of updates recently?)<br>
<br>
Essentially the current situation is:<br>
- Here look we have a tempting and useful feature<br>
- BUT if you want to use it you will have to accept nearly working
documentation with a few gremlins here and there because we would
rather leave them broken than make a handful of corrections (not even
loads, just a few...)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200907130414.03299.5ko@5ko.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I see the benefit of being able to use varied URL construction functions, for
administrators who are aware that it may break existing links and who decide
to deal with it because they want/need it, and it is worth it. :-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
And so every person who wants it ends up fixing a handful of key links
in their local copy of the documentation which is then flushed away
when they update to the latest version, whilst people on this list
state that it's going to put hairs on my chest to keep repeating this
work continually in my local copy rather than allowing me to do make
the changes once on the master copy<br>
<br>
...Thanks for that... I love extra work for the hell of it<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200907130414.03299.5ko@5ko.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I also consider a feature being able to write [[(Pm )wiki]], [[(Wiki )styles]]
and [[(Wiki )trails]] when I link to PmWiki, WikiStyles or WikiTrails - it is
easier than [[WikiTrails|trails]].
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hmm, so why has 95% of the documentation been converted away from that
format then? I think if I had shutup and just made the changes then no
one would have commented, but because I make a suggestion to change
things then suddenly it's a "oh no - change is coming! Resist! Resist!"<br>
<br>
Your examples are incorrect anyway. PM has already stated (unless he
changes his mind) that he wants is spelt "PmWiki", so example one is
blown<br>
<br>
Your next too examples are the wrong way around. I want them the same
way around that you want them, ie I want to write [[(Wiki )styles]] -
so either you didn't read my original post of you are just proving my
point that this list seems to think that any whiff of "change" must be
resisted vigorously at all costs...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200907130414.03299.5ko@5ko.fr" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Lastly, even if we modify the links to work both for you and for the rest of
us, tomorrow users will create new links that will be valid on all sites and
broken on yours. :-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps a tiny fraction yes. However, "someone" has already fixed up
nearly ALL the documentation already. I am making the suggestion that
we go from "nearly all", to "nearly, nearly all bar a handful
remaining" and I'm getting resistance?!! Come on, we already walked
almost completely down this road and I'm suggesting we carry on as we
already are<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Seriously - read the original question again. We are nearly, nearly
there already. Lets just finish what is already started. I'm not
asking to go in a different direction - this is already the direction
the docs are going in<br>
<br>
Consider that:<br>
- PmWiki has changed the default to not space wiki links.<br>
- Therefore it becomes significant if we write "Wiki Style" or
"WikiStyle" since they will appear differently now (previously with
auto spacing they would appear the same).<br>
- Nearly everywhere the trend has been to add a space, eg "Wiki style"
or "Wiki Style".<br>
- However, I sense that there is some strong feeling that there are
still a few "proper nouns" which should be left unspaced, eg "PmWiki"
appears to be one which is declared should be left unspaced? Are there
any others, eg I can see a case for "WikiStyle" or "WikiTrail" being
used as a "proper noun" and being left unspaced deliberately? If so
then I propose that we should reverse the documentation wording for
those links and use the non spaced version consistently?<br>
<br>
<br>
Hopefully we are all pulling in the same direction now?<br>
<br>
Ed W<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>