# Help us test the rewritten Composer **URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/help-us-test-the-rewritten-composer/34679 **Category:** Feature **Tags:** feedback **Created:** [10월 19, 2015, 4:51오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/help-us-test-the-rewritten-composer/34679 "2015-10-19T16:51:38Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 108
### Author: ![erlend\_sh](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/erlend_sh/32/119475_2.png) [@erlend\_sh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/erlend_sh) #### Post date: [11월 17, 2015, 6:39오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/help-us-test-the-rewritten-composer/34679/108 "2015-11-17T18:39:48Z")
> [@ky\_metro](#): > > The new composer is handling links differently @ky_metro & @wesochuck see this: > [@Why does Discourse prefer footnote-style Markdown links?](https://meta.discourse.org/t/why-does-discourse-prefer-footnote-style-markdown-links/32683): > > I’m referring to this kind of linking: [see this article][1] … which is the Discourse default, as opposed to this type of linking: [see this article](http://example.com/article) I’m curious, why are you opting for the footnote style of linking? Is it just a [remnant of the StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/editing-help#links) days? I find the [title](link) syntax to be much less error prone. It makes it considerably easier to change or remove links, and it’s most likely the syntax you’ll adhere to if you’re formatting the entire l… In short, inline links are easier to use for the average user (fewer ways to screw up) and they’re more appropriate for medium- to short-form content. I think an option for it is a bit much. Could be a really simple plugin if anyone’s interested in doing the work. * * * The [pop up for link insertion still appears in-editor](https://meta.discourse.org/t/help-us-test-the-rewritten-composer/34679/48). Is that the new intended behaviour? --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/help-us-test-the-rewritten-composer/34679)._