https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/9436237
@MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
(replaced with my own user profile, as I'm not trying to fill other users' inboxes for no real reason)(also, this somehow worked right when making this post, but not the original comment)
[@MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de](/u/MachineFab812)
https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/9293054 https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9620373
https://jlai.lu/comment/6487794
While we're at it, am I missing at instance-agnostic method for linking posts as well?
Because they are used to that? Because that's what the share button does in any browser?
I don't understand why you are so combative.
You unaware there have been share buttons on posts/comments on most websites for years and years now? You already have to follow some sort of permalink button to get to a url that lets you share anything more specific than a top-level post, and that was the case in forums dating back to the ninetees.
You're invoking a use-case that never was so narrow, nor mainstream as you've claimed. If people were actually so used to copying and pasting urls from the address bar, google and others would not be holding onto market dominance after all the things they have done to make the address bar in their browsers a pain to use.
Last, its not combative to address your comment point-for-point. I have not demeaned you or your logic, just called out where it was partial and incomplete.
In what way is my point invalid then? I think you are being combative, because you used the idea that people don't copy urls directly, as if that meant there was a way to get relative ones working well. There isn't.
People will use absolute links, so they should work. If they can be made to work, why do we need relative ones to solve the problem of links not opening locally?
Sure, when you use the various share buttons all over, you can get different more specific share options.
But when have they ever netted a relative link, much less done so when SHARING?
Generally, you're right, except that Lemmy is a new use-case. Its like if facebook made you login again because you follwed a facebook.com link from within facebook, all because the user who created the link is in a different time-zone. What's not to understand about how broken that would be?
An user following an absolute link that doesn't re-direct them back to their own instance is likely not going to be able to interact with the content there. As things stand, we then have to search up the content we want to interact with on our own instance.
Within the context of a Lemmy user following a link from a comment, at least, the relative link is more useful. For a non-user reading such commente the desired behavior would be to open such links absolutely, pointed to the post's orinating instance, the commentor's originating instance, or the instance which is actually serving them that content in the moment, but hey, that's the behavior we ALL get already, and no-one is proposing breaking it for non-users.
Fact is, Lemmy is already capable of serving up a different parsed url for logged-in users and non-users, the webUI just hasn't implimented the feature yet, and so here we are.
Not what I'm proposing
Again. Not what I'm proposing.
Only when viewed on one specific client, on one specific fediverse platform.
This is what I'm proposing. Except being logged in isn't even a requirement for the webUI to open all links it can open locally, locally.
And looking into it, I'd much rather have a system for "mentioning" posts or comments in the same "object@instance" format that we already use to link communities and users, as proposed here. Such a system would have no need for client specific relative url paths, and would boil down the mention to the object ID and the instance where it can be found, allowing any client or even other fediverse platform to easily parse it into something that can be used.
What you're proposing? I'm talking about the state of the issue on Lemmy, as mentioned in the post. As for your last paragraph, that's exactly what I want, and more or less what I've proposed. Sounds like you're invoking UUIDs as an even better solution, something I already acknowleged when @RobotToaster@mander.xyz brought it up.