Change Details

@Lydia_Pintscher I skimmed through the other merge tickets but could not find written specification what should happen in case of links to forms that were contained in lexemes that have been merged/redirected since. How should they be formatted? The information we normally use to render them (representations) is lost and we can hardly (would be a story in its own to try) find it in the new lexeme. I vaguely remember discussions about creating a red link showing just the old id. But point where? We would have access to the new lexeme id.

The other merge tickets seem not to contain written specification what should happen in case of links to forms that were contained in lexemes that have been merged/redirected since. How should they be formatted? The information we normally use to render them (representations) is lost and we can hardly (would be a story in its own to try) find it in the new lexeme. I vaguely remember discussions about creating a red link showing just the old id. But point where? We would have access to the new lexeme id. AC: * render id (serialization) as anchor text * link to form on "old" lexeme (e.g. Lexeme:L9#L9-F2), i.e. the redirect has no effect on where we link to (same as before)

@Lydia_Pintscher I skimmed through tThe other merge tickets but could not findseem not to contain written specification what should happen in case of links to forms that were contained in lexemes that have been merged/redirected since. How should they be formatted? The information we normally use to render them (representations) is lost and we can hardly (would be a story in its own to try) find it in the new lexeme. I vaguely remember discussions about creating a red link showing just the old id. But point where? We would have access to the new lexeme id. AC: * render id (serialization) as anchor text * link to form on "old" lexeme (e.g. Lexeme:L9#L9-F2), i.e. the redirect has no effect on where we link to (same as before)