Hi everyone,
I’d like to close this proposal soon, so I’ll compile here a list of the points that were discussed:
#1 Non-standard UI elements
This seems to be generally accepted; most concerns are about consistency anyway.
#2 Page tree icon
Most of you agree that the current icon is not very visible, but the proposed “search” icon is also not ideal. I’m putting here two options that could be used, both from FontAwesome, but are not part of the icon theme, so they should be added to it first.
Option 1: 
Option 2: 
Both could fallback to this Silk icon if we still want to support it somehow.
#3 Use tabs instead of an icon
Opinions diverged a bit on this point. Proposed solutions include:
- Using tabs (original proposal)
- Continuing to use icons
- Using an icon in front of the field, with additional logic that observes what the user types and selects a link type accordingly
#4 Extra feature – provide a link target option
It would be useful for users to be able to define that a link should open in a new page (unchecked by default).
#5 Extra feature – get anchor-type links inside pages
While it is already possible to point to specific anchors inside a page, discovering them can be tricky. It would be a significant improvement if these links could be exposed beforehand by the link dialog.
I’m not sure how feasible this is, though.
#6 Extra features for the overall link functionality (not just the dialog)
- Rich tooltips
- Programmatic definition of attributes
- Additional customized link types
- Extension/customization of the link creation logic
While I agree that most of these would be very helpful, I’m concerned they fall outside the scope of this proposal. For now, I suggest leaving them out, while adding a note in the proposal itself to address them in separate, dedicated proposals.
I’ll keep this open until January 30th in case more people want to participate and share their opinions.
Thank you all.