Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

open.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#41

Post by goldenthunder »

jedsmith wrote: post #33
[deleted] wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Hardly. The attitude you're demonstrating is the real anathema. You're just confusing people recoiling from your abrasive disposition with disagreement over the importance of tests (as others have done in this thread). > Enterprise JS is 400 lines of code... 0 lines of tests. Kudos, NYT. See how your comment carries across a real difficulty working with other people? This would have said the same thing, albeit withou…

> I'm suspicious of anyone who spends their time critiquing others' work so harshly instead of innovating on their own.

How in any way is that 'positive'? Also, read the OP's original post. Is it really that offensive to you? I can almost see it as some poke of a joke--humor. Something that seems to escape the boring minds of those who long to be someone special, DEFENDING THE INTERNET! Stop being a superhero, read the comment and move on. There is no reason for you to regulate anyone's internet experience.

I'm not trying to take sides, but from an unbiased point of view, you argument is invalid.

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#43

Post by jedsmith »

goldenthunder wrote: post #41
jedsmith wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly. The attitude you're demonstrating is the real anathema. You're just confusing people recoiling from your abrasive disposition with disagreement over the importance of tests (as others have done in this thread). > Enterprise JS is 400 lines of code... 0 lines of tests. Kudos, NYT. See how your comment carries across a real difficulty working with other people? This would have said the same thing, albeit withou…

> I'm suspicious of anyone who spends their time critiquing others' work so harshly instead of innovating on their own. How in any way is that 'positive'? Also, read the OP's original post. Is it really that offensive to you? I can almost see it as some poke of a joke--humor. Something that seems to escape the boring minds of those who long to be someone special, DEFENDING THE INTERNET! Stop being a superhero, read t…

Who said anything about the Internet?

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#44

Post by r0s »

lukeschlather wrote: post #9
hinathan wrote: post #3

Speaking of NYTimes, Safari user stylesheet has a line to disable the annoying word definition popup when selecting text. .nytd_selection_button { display:none; }

That's why NYT is never getting on my NoScript whitelist. I have a nervous habit of highlighting random text while I read.

Me too, and I would like to know if anyone has ever studied the trend so I can better develop my application for these users.

Wikipedia claims it does not exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulsive_highlighting

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#45

Post by qixxiq »

donohoe wrote: post #19

I'm surprised to find this posted here. I developed this and given the community here I'd appreciate any feedback for future iterations...

I would add a convenient way for this to interact with already existing hashed links that are used for navigation.

Rather than the #p[...],h[...] how about #p=...&h=...?

EDIT: Or even #deeplink=p[...],h[...]

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#46

Post by stdbrouw »

I think v2 is trying to solve a problem it shouldn't have to solve. If the NYT made available previous (published!) revisions of their content, there would be no need to assign paragraphs with special IDs or the like. You'd simply say, "get me p2 for the story as it was on Jan 11 15:33". When you link to a specific piece of content, it's in the hopes that people will read or see the same thing you saw when you made the link. You don't want to be talking about different things, so revision-awareness would actually make more sense overall.

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#47

Post by bambax »

nicpottier wrote: post #10
Swizec wrote: post #6

I don't understand what's so awesome about this? Browsers have supported deep linking since forever. You can link to any specific id on a page and the browser will scroll to it when you open the page. For example, I could have every paragraph an id say id="p5" and then link ad example.com/story#p5 and voila, deep linking. Hoorah for reinventing the wheel :)

RTFM? :) The difference is no 'href' tags. The 'tag' is automatically created based on the words in the paragraph, via Javascript, and decoded appropriately. It is also slightly neat in that you can highlight a specific sentence (multiple sentences actually, see the little tutorial at the bottom). I actually kind of like it, it would be a neat way to really highlight what you think is interesting in an article when s…

Highlighting is neat; but concerning deep linking, the parent has a point: since the NYT controls the source, why not simply generate anchors for each paragraph?

The upside would be that there would be much less work needed to find edited paragraphs: a paragraph would be identified by its anchor and it could be changed completely, as long as the anchor is still there the link's fine.

This approach has certainly been envisioned: it would be interesting to know why it was put aside?

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#49

Post by jonknee »

tjpick wrote: post #16
mikeklaas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't it sufficient to use the Google-hosted jQuery? It's likely to be cached.

1. a boatload of page view info you are sending off to google 2. it's another dependency that you don't control

1) They set far in future expires header, so they should see very very little of your page view info.

Re: NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS

#50

Post by donohoe »

qixxiq wrote: post #45
donohoe wrote: post #19

I'm surprised to find this posted here. I developed this and given the community here I'd appreciate any feedback for future iterations...

I would add a convenient way for this to interact with already existing hashed links that are used for navigation. Rather than the #p[...],h[...] how about #p=...&h=...? EDIT: Or even #deeplink=p[...],h[...]

Its a fair point, and there were a number of ways it could have been done.

Given that there could be a long number of paramaters included for Highlighting I felt the [] gave a sense of belonging.

I like the #deeplink suggestion too, but in the end being as concise as possible was a factor.

Post reply on HN