![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zellieh) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2010-03-11 09:17 pm
When importing, update/change internal links
Title:
When importing, update/change internal links
Area:
Importing, links
Summary:
When I imported my LJ entries to DW, a lot of my LJ entries were cross-linked to other entries in my LJ , so it would be great if the Importer could update those links to the new DW URLs when it imports those entries.
Description:
As I import entries from my LJ (or other journalling service), any internal cross-links from one of my journal entries to another of my journal entries should be updated as well.
So, if my LJ post 'zellieh.lj.com/123' (which becomes something like 'zellieh.dreamwidth.org/123') contains a link in it to another of my posts, 'zellieh.lj.com/100', then that link should be updated it's new Dreamwidth URL, 'zellieh.dreamwidth.org/100'.
NOTE: I am only suggesting this initially for links that go from one of my journal entries to another of my own entries, not for any links to other people's journals.
I am not a technical person, but I'm assuming that at some point in the import process, there's a record of the old LJ URLs and the new DW URLs for each entry; I'm hoping that that's the information that could be used to update the internal links.
Pros: This would save a lot of time when moving from another journal site to Dreamwidth, because you wouldn't have to go back in and hand re-code a lot of older links on older posts. (Something I still haven't done, because I am dreading the work involved.)
Cons: It would likely complicate and slow down the initial importing process, and you would likely have to wait until you had all the information available at the end of the import before you could update all the links. Perhaps it might be better as a separate option, or next step after the import is complete?
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
17 (38.6%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
19 (43.2%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (4.5%)
(I have no opinion)
4 (9.1%)
(Other: please comment)
2 (4.5%)
no subject