@mention inconsistencies

[roxaloxa]

So in this example, @jimpick's name is linked up in the message but @flame's is not. I follow jimpick and I do not follow flame. However, the neauoire > [user] part is linked up appropriately for both.

Shouldn't @flame in the message be linked to their portal?

[roxaloxa]

@neauoire I see now in #3 that you commented about mentions in your known network will be linked. There's an interesting methodology here about disabling others from revealing your dat URL if you don't want to be in their network... but it's currently half-way in between two thoughts because the URL is revealed in the [user] > [user] reply link.

[neauoire]

Yeah, I did this by design. I kind of link entries to be aimed at one person at a time, it can be both a reply, or a sort of "hey look at this person!". On twitter for instance, if you start a tweet with a mention it flags it as a convo.

In the message body, only your known network is highlighted, which I think is at least an indicator wether you know this person or not, despite it being mentioned at the top of the tweet. I'm open to make the username clickable too, I'm kind of on the fence.

[roxaloxa]

Maybe all usernames are clickable, but those in your network get an extra class on them to be styled differently via CSS?

Depends on if you wanna push something bigger here about user privacy/ownership. Maybe I don't want other people finding my URL, maybe I only give it to people I trust.

[Karuji]

Not sure if it's related, but I noticed in a post that had been edited it lost the [user] > [user] at the top despite the post still being between those users.