![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Question thread #151
It's time for another question thread!
The rules:
- You may ask any dev-related question you have in a comment. (It doesn't even need to be about Dreamwidth, although if it involves a language/library/framework/database Dreamwidth doesn't use, you will probably get answers pointing that out and suggesting a better place to ask.)
- You may also answer any question, using the guidelines given in To Answer, Or Not To Answer and in this comment thread.
The rules:
- You may ask any dev-related question you have in a comment. (It doesn't even need to be about Dreamwidth, although if it involves a language/library/framework/database Dreamwidth doesn't use, you will probably get answers pointing that out and suggesting a better place to ask.)
- You may also answer any question, using the guidelines given in To Answer, Or Not To Answer and in this comment thread.
no subject
Someone in my circle recently mentioned that one of their mutual subscription dw friends gets notified every time they post - I assume this is because the friend has clicked on "tracking" for their account and wants to be notified so they don't miss any posts.
However, it sounds like EVEN if that post is filtered such that the dw friend cannot see it, the friend will still get notified that the post exists? So they are being made aware, that a post exists, but they cannot see it.
That seems, not quite right to me? Is that what is expected? I have always assumed (and maybe that was wrong!) that if a post is not available to someone, they would not get any notification that it exists?
EDIT: nevermind! I did some testing with a test account - and determined that the only way I can make this happen is if the initial post is done with visibility set to "Public" and then the post is immediately edited and changed to use a filtered access list. Which makes sense.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
When I first started using Livejournal, I frequently linked other things I had written with links like
<a href="https://dw-dev.dreamwidth.org/248208.html">. Those worked nicely.But when the Russian company bought Livejournal, I started planning my exit. (A recent, extended stretch of down-time finally motivated me to make the move for real.)
My trick for making my intra-site links portable was to just link the date, like
<a href="https://dw-dev.dreamwidth.org/2026/06/01">.But that becomes ambiguous if I have more than one article in a day.
So finally, my question: Would it be possible allow links of the form
<a href=https://dw-dev.dreamwidth.org/2026/06/01/19/44">? That would still do the wrong thing if I posted twice within the same minute, but I don't think I have any instances of that, and if I did, I could either change the time stamp on one before linking to it, or just accept that the link goes to all entries of that minute.no subject
Related question:
Is it possible to link articles, dates, and so forth with relative links, such as
<a href="./248208.html">or<a href="./2026/06/01">?Or even something like
<a href="~dw-dev/248208.html">?That would make it easier to switch between sites using the Livejournal codebase, as long as it was adopted into the common codebase. One possible reaction to that is, "Oh my, do we really want to make it easier for people to switch away from Dreamwidth?" But if it's adopted into the common codebase, it also makes it easier for people to bail out of Livejournal – quite possibly to here.
Based on a preview, if that sort of thing exists already, either I've guessed the exact URL format wrong, or the comment box just doesn't recognize them.