PHPBB3-14323 / PHPBB3-14332 - Link shortening

[Marc]

Tested the URL shortening on 3.1 now:

It seems like 3.1.x did not shorten URLs posted inside [url] not matter if using just [url] or [url=...]...[/url].
This does seem more consistent to me than what your change seems to do for 3.2.

[JoshyPHP]

Yes, as I mentionned in the first post this part is definitively different. IMO it's more consistent to treat [url] with no params the same way as no BBCode at all. Consider the three:

1. http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=286721#p286721
2. [url]http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=286721#p286721[/url]
3. [url=http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=286721#p286721]text[/url]

In the first example, the user did not specify a text for the link so anything goes. In the third example, the user did specify a URL and a text for the link so the intent is clear. In the second example, the user gave a URL but no descriptive text for the link so I don't see it as being different from the first.

With that said, I really don't care either way so I removed it from the PR.

also as I pointed out in one of those tickets there needs to be some html changes to the output to allow for better control of the overall styling. basically adding a wrapping span around the text with a class on it... something simple like post-link-text

I assume this is not specific to shortened link and more of a general issue, correct? If so, that's something that'd be better tackled as part of a different PR.

I seem to remember this being a problem, but can't find the post now.

I read similar bug reports from 3.0 dating a few years back. If it's the same bug, it's been fixed since then.

[hanakin]

Can be separate although somewhat related to allow but control prevent text wrap

[Elsensee]

Well I think of the url tag as an explicit call to the parser that "here really comes a link, so pay attention!". That I wanted to show the link in his whole length.
You could also ask why we need a url bbcode anymore then if they have the same behaviour.

I don't know, I just like the old behaviour more, but if most users want this behaviour to be changed, I'll not be in your way.

[Un1matr1x]

Why use link shortening @ all?

The best way would be to leaf it out of the core an make a offical extension, but this are only my 2 cents

[CHItA]

1. http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=286721#p286721
2. [url]http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=286721#p286721[/url]
3. [url=http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=286721#p286721]text[/url]

In the first example, the user did not specify a text for the link so anything goes. In the third example, the user did specify a URL and a text for the link so the intent is clear. In the second example, the user gave a URL but no descriptive text for the link so I don't see it as being different from the first.

+1 for this

[DavidIQ]

Why use link shortening @ all?

The best way would be to leaf it out of the core an make a offical extension, but this are only my 2 cents

It was a core feature that was removed by accident after an extensive upgrade to the BBCode parser, so no it won't become an official extension at all. Besides it's not "true" link shortening anyways, like through bit.ly, so there's very little reason to make it an official extension.

[Marc]

I'd like to change my opinion here. With [url =... ] one specifies a link title that shouldn't be shortened. However, this does not matter for either plain URLs or URLs posted inside a normal [url] BBCode. Therefore I think shortening plain URLs and URLs inside [url] makes more sense.

[hanakin]

I'd like to change my opinion here. With [url =... ] one specifies a link title that shouldn't be shortened. However, this does not matter for either plain URLs or URLs posted inside a normal [url] BBCode. Therefore I think shortening plain URLs and URLs inside [url] makes more sense.

combined with proper use of text-overflow styling this should be fine. I usually post links on their own line so the only issue for me is mobile which can be handled via css text-overflow coupled with the changes I recommended to the output of the links from the core having wrapping spans with a class of postlink-text

[mrgoldy]

That would mean it was broken, which it wasn't. Quoting a shortened link would keep it short but the link would still work properly.

I seem to remember this being a problem, but can't find the post now.

I just quoted a post from KevC on phpBB.com which only contained a single (internal) url. Now the quote url isn't a link anymore, eventhough I did nothing to adjust it / edit. Just simply clicked 'Reply with quote'. Not sure if this is desired or not? Seems to me like it should still be a 'clickable' link.

phpBB Forum link: https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtop ... #p14315396
Screenshot for the lazy among us:


The post content:

Code: Select all

[quote="KevC"]https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=456&t=2296866&p=14025846&hilit=anonymous#p14025846[/quote]
This extension is also marked as Abandoned and in the Abandoned Extensions Forum so should not be used either.

I do not know of an extension currently in development that does this.