bad wiki timeline link

[Chris Good]

> On 8 Aug 2015, at 6:49 pm, Geert Janssens <geert.gnucash at kobaltwit.be> wrote:
> 
> On Saturday 08 August 2015 11:44:00 Chris Good wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Ralls [mailto:jralls at ceridwen.us]
>>> Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2015 9:42 AM
>>> To: Chris Good <chris.good at ozemail.com.au>
>>> Cc: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>>> Subject: Re: bad wiki timeline link
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Chris Good
>>>> <chris.good at ozemail.com.au>
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> On page
>>>> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Documentation_Update_Instructions,
>>>> link
>>> 
>>> http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/timeline doesn't work.
>>> 
>>>> If some-one can tell me what it should be or if it should be
>>>> removed,
>>>> I'll update it?
>>>> 
>>>> Please copy me on the reply as I only get daily gnucash-user mail.
>>> 
>>> We’re not using trac any more, so it should be removed. I don’t see
>>> anything in that page that says anything about it, so it doesn’t
>>> need replacing, either.
>>> 
>>> If you have time it would be nice to convert those references into
>>> proper footnotes or embedded links.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> John Ralls
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> AFAICT the Wiki Cite extension (footnotes) is designed more for citing
>> actual published papers or books rather than URLs as the text you put
>> ref tags around is shown in the automatically generated footnote.
>> 
>> It seems to me (maybe I'm getting totally the wrong impression), some
>> people (not naming anyone in particular Geert...) prefer to not have
>> the actual URL in the body of the text, just in the footnote.
> As you mention my name here...
> 
> Where I add URL's is heavily dependent on the context. In e-mail 
> messages (non-html ones), I tend to group all URL's at the bottom of the 
> mail. I do that to avoid issues with poor word wrapping that some e-mail 
> clients do and to improve the readability of the message in general.
> 
> Wiki's however are totally different. I usually embed the URL's in the 
> text. And I rarely show the plain URL. I normally choose a few relevant 
> words which will become the html anchor for the URL. Like "REFERENCES" 
> becomes a link to the references in the wiki page we're talking of in 
> the mail.
> 
>> I'm OK with adding the URL where it is first referenced, so it could
>> also appear in the footnotes. Anybody have objections?
> I have no strong opinion on whether we should keep a list of references 
> separately and whether or not it should be converted into footnotes. The 
> advantage of using citation is that the numbering will always remain 
> consistent. In this case however, we might as well use the reference 
> links directly in the steps they try to add context to instead of 
> working with a separate list of references. That requires less jumping 
> around on the page while getting acquainted with the process of updating 
> the documentation
> 
> As said I don't have a strong opinion here. As far as I'm concerned use 
> your own good judgment.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Geert

Hi Geert,

As usual, you make great sense. Thanks for clearing that up!

Regards,

Chris Good