38

Currently, the only way to link to a revision (clicking "link"), you just get a page which shows what the post looked like at that revision:

Personally, I rarely use this and haven't ever found myself in a scenario (as far as I remember) where I would prefer the way it currently works to what I'm suggesting here.

Could we:

  • Add another link, or
  • Change the current link

Such that it:

  • Displays the diff on a separate page (I'd prefer this, since the highlight and scroll thing doesn't always work properly - although perhaps it has something to do with loading images, so it might not apply here, or, if it doesn't, we could fix that instead), or

  • Highlights and scrolls to a diff, like what is done when you link to an answer (possible URL?)

3
  • 4
    There are linkable ids in the HTML source, but not having to use browser dev tools to extract them would be helpful. Commented Jun 14, 2014 at 18:53
  • 3
    @MartijnPieters You mean something like this? Seems like a URL that could be changed at any time. Commented Jun 14, 2014 at 19:22
  • 2
    @Dukeling this looks like a GUID (unique id) and is according to SEDE the way revisions are identified in Stack Exchange. Only problem is when the page of the revision changes. Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 16:19

1 Answer 1

1

As is often the case, there is a user script to mitigate the issue: Revision diff view (written by yours truly).

This only adds the diff for those who have the script installed, and it defaults to no diff view. But it still makes a specific revision’s diff more accessible than it would be otherwise, and suggests a way to point to a specific revision’s diff by simply linking to that revision’s individual page (/revisions/⟨post id⟩/⟨revision number⟩); see for yourself at https://meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/58035/8 (which is what one of the comments attempted to link to). Those unable to install the script may click through post history to view the diff; and it is less susceptible to link rot than a link to post history (/posts/⟨post id⟩/revisions), where the element anchors are undocumented, and the items may bump to another page at any time.

I otherwise concur with the feature request. I agree this is something that should be provided out of the box.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .