andi:1406799710 wrote
matm wrote
But, sometimes I want some internal links to open in a new page, to be able to keep the previous one reachable (think about nested procedures).
*you* want that? That's easy, click the link with the middle mouse button. Do not assume your users always want exactly what you want. In general, forcing new windows is bad UX.
You are right, but that is not the point. People may have or not a good reason to do this, this is not up to the developer to decide.
The configuration I suggest allows a wiki admin to tell the contributors:
* If, as the maintainer of the page, you want to open a link to an internal page in a new window (further help on a procedure, reference table, whatever the writer imagines), use interwiki links to do so.
It allows for relative linking while allowing a new target.
*You*, as a programmer, allow interwiki links to be opened in a new window,
except if the interwiki points to self. *This* is what I consider inconsistent. As a webmaster, I am allowed to define a setting which is not used by the program under certain circumstances, without knowing it.
Moreover, *you*, as a programmer, allow internal links to be opened in a new window with
target»wiki. So, one can achieve the behaviour by setting
_blank [/m]in target»wiki and [m]_blank in
target»interwiki, knowing you will block it for self links. One just have to use interwiki links for internal links by default and internal links when one wants them to open in another window.
With my previous example, it is demonstrated that you cannot prevent people to setup their links to open in a new window if they want to. You just a priori fix the case where someone with an internal link (which opens in the same window) used an interwiki link instead. But if he does it intentionally, you block him with no warning.
I would expect a software to handle intentional uses rather than fixing occasional user failures (which could be fixed by the user easily, just by editing his link).
IMO, I stand that *your* algorithm for interwiki links is inconsistent and thus flawed, and I consider this a bug rather than a feature.
My best regards
PS: I understand that you would not fix this because some webmasters may rely on this behaviour, but I would like you to admit that was a choice at a time, and that it is not consistent.