7

I'd ask for it for other vendors, but I'm not sure how others handle their KB article source HTML, etc. and I'm not an HTML person regardless.

Here's what I'm looking for...

I know that when I paste a URL link to another question on ServerFault it automatically changes the url to the title of the Question.

I'd like the same functionality for Microsoft Knowledge Base articles here on ServerFault. It'd be nice to do it for others as well but you get the idea.

With a normal Microsoft KB article link it appears the "Page Title" source is the correct title/syntax to use when linking to that KB URL.

For instance: http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2740020 has the following source html:

<meta name="bi:pagetitle" content="Information about power management setting on a network adapter - [2740020]" />

Another example: http://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/837058 has the following source html:

<meta name="bi:pagetitle" content="How to disable power management for a network adapter when you deploy Windows XP - [837058]" />

So linking to the above URLs would change them automatically to what's in the quotes inside content= basically.

Again, I don't know how difficult it would be to code to make it automatically handle this, or if it's even possible. But if it is, that would be a great feature and could included additional OEMs/Vendors as well.

3
  • +1, I wonder if this is used across the Big 3 sites enough to warrant this being posted on meta.SE.
    – MDMoore313
    Commented Mar 31, 2015 at 14:27
  • 3
    I don't know that BigHomie...I won't go into meta.SE though...even after the separation/changes with SO. There are a few SE employees like Tom, Kyle, Shane that should at least see this post. I know feature requests take second place to bug fixes and things like Stack Egg... :)
    – TheCleaner
    Commented Mar 31, 2015 at 14:46
  • 1
    Scratch Kyle (last seen 15/1) and Tom (16/2).
    – user9517
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 8:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Actually, I semi-dislike this feature, as it sometimes creates nonsensical sentences and I believe links should either be visible as URLs or make grammatical sense.

Example:

The first form is easiest to read and the second makes it clear it's a link. Granted, it's not difficulty to get the meaning of the third form, but it somehow annoys me.

Just a personal preference :)

6
  • 2
    w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
    – Michael Hampton Mod
    Commented Mar 31, 2015 at 18:09
  • So to your point #1 Hampton addressed. On #2 the problem there is that the URL could be quite long and possibly nonsensical if you just leave it as a visible URL. On #3 that's essentially what I'm asking for. The hope being that the text itself lends to searching if the URL is broken...
    – TheCleaner
    Commented Mar 31, 2015 at 18:31
  • It's just a tip by the W3C, not a rule, and not a particular good one, IMHO. Also, what I understand they are talking about would be "To read more about it, click here". I know you want the third variant, I just meant to illustrate why I don't like it. But I really don't have a strong opinion on it, I justed wanted to demonstrate not everybody wants or likes this feature, even if "not everybody" might only mean just me :)
    – Sven Mod
    Commented Mar 31, 2015 at 18:42
  • 4
    I personally prefer #3. In any case, it's the choice of the person creating the link, wouldn't you think?
    – Hyppy
    Commented Mar 31, 2015 at 19:45
  • @Sven yep understand. I won't lose sleep over this either way. Just figured it was a "delighter" not a "must be".
    – TheCleaner
    Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 13:45
  • I agree that URLS should be visible. There is no need to obfuscate the source
    – Jim B
    Commented Apr 6, 2015 at 18:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .