InclusiveLinkSyntax

Hi, Lion! Personally, I don’t think the new name is a good choice. All Wikis make AutoLinks, and the name has no real connection to the idea. Why did you choose it? – ChrisPurcell

Uh, yes- I see the problem. All wiki links are “automatic.”

But “Inclusive Link Syntax”- I was thinking, “What’s this mean? What’s this mean?” It didn’t really tell me anything by itself.

Well, I think this “automatic” is a little more automatic than in general.

For instance, it’s very easy to perform accidental linking, or getting something to link that didn’t link before. It seems more automatic to me.

But if you still don’t like the name, we should pick something else.

How about… LinkWheneverPossible?

Well, here’s something we can do: We can call it both InclusiveLinkSyntax, and AutoLink.

We can move the page back here, and then redirect AutoLink to this page..?

Motive for Inclusive Link Syntax: Most link syntaxes are exclusive. “You can use any of these, and they will all be spotted in the text, but nothing else will work.” With this idea, we spot all the “default” patterns, but the list to search for is inclusive of all actual pages. Does that make sense of the name choice? – ChrisPurcell

Yeah; I understand the idea of the name. It just- you have to have thought about it for a while for it to make sense. Ideally, we’d have a name that you can read, and then go- “Oh, I think I know what that is.”

At any rate, I’m not attached to AutoLink. We’ll name it “InclusiveLinkSyntax,” and redirect AutoLink to point to this page. – LionKimbro 2004-05-20

Moved to: AutoLink