Referendum on core changes
Morris Gray
core syntax on pretty links to come in line with another wiki's
syntax.
http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki/t/bdc287b4ef381d97
I disagree strongly. I don't think TiddlyWiki should be brought in
line with another syntax simply because one or two users who are using
both get mixed up quite often.
TiddlyWiki has a history, a legacy and identity, and there many legacy
TiddlyWikis out there. If someone gets mixed up between syntaxes; I
say concentrate more. Or if you love these other wikis so much; use
them and forget TiddlyWiki. As I have tried to say before these knee-
jerk modifications to the TiddlyWiki core will ultimately kill
TiddlyWiki.
It is fine to have plugins for the other multitude of wiki syntaxes
out there but modifying the core to suit them is over the top. What's
the flavour next month, and where will be the fickle wiki users be who
modified the core on a whim and turned their loyalties and interests
elsewhere?
I invite other members to comment on this general theme. The
TiddlyWiki core should keep its focus and not sacrifice its identity
to vested interests of the few who, at the moment, can decide its
direction.
Morris Gray
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
A TiddlyWiki help file for beginners
FND
> core syntax on pretty links to come in line with another wiki's
> syntax.
Quote from the thread you referenced:
> we should take this to [twdev] then:
> http://tinyurl.com/ypuyzb
> (http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev/browse_thread/thread/8e4889dbc861f0ef)
That thread on [twdev] contains a much better reasoning.
My take on this issue (concise version): The more interoperable
TiddlyWiki is, the more power- and useful it becomes. Plus backwards
compatibility would - as always - be retained.
As for TiddlyWiki's "history, legacy and identity": Interoperability is
a big and important part of TiddlyWiki's future.
However, that does in no way threaten the regular users (on the
contrary, it empowers them!).
Jeremy and The Crew have always worked hard to make sure of this, and
I'm confident that's not gonna change.
-- F.
schilke
> line with another syntax simply because one or two users who are using
> both get mixed up quite often
sorry, but from my point of view I am finding this slightly
underestimated. MediaWiki is used in at least 70% of all cases, a
professional wiki with a database is needed.
For my personal work it doesn't matter much, how the syntax of both
system goes, because I use tools which automate the link generation.
But I also would vote for matching standards and usability as close as
possible.
You didn't mention the usability aspect, which has also been discussed
with the issue. As an experienced HTML coder and with years of working
with "lightweight markup languages", like "Markdown" or "Textile" - I
would always vote for a [[TARGET|LABEL]] syntax. Textile for example
uses the opposite (although a bit more intuitive and less confusable
than TW) - I had problems not to mix it up all the time.
(not to mention the probably most important: (x)html = [[TARGET|
LABEL]])
> TiddlyWiki has a history, a legacy and identity, and there many legacy
> TiddlyWikis out there.
Yes, you're absolutely right - but: as a participator of many open
source projects I strongly believe in implementing standards and cross
application compatibility the easiest way.
If you have no problem with accepting the majority principle - we're
done right now, because you could be absolutely sure that there are
much more MediaWiki users out there than TiddlyWiki users...
TARGET is not mandatory for a link - so logically it should be better
appended.
> Or if you love these other wikis so much; use
> them and forget TiddlyWiki
Don't be too hard - the point with MediaWiki is, that you sometimes
can't choose (if you participate with WikiPedia for example) and that
TiddlyWiki _can_ and _should_ be used _in conjunction_ with other
wikis. I'm sure, a lot of users will agree with that. And: what about
the MediaWiki community? They couldn't argue like that (in a
referendum similar to yours...) because TW for example simply doesn't
provide some key features needed for a professional multiuser wiki
application.
To bring it to the point: I personally feel really convinced by
WikiCreoles "links reasoning in wiki engines"
http://wikicreole.org/wiki/LinksReasoning
seems, they didn't simply flip a coin ;-)
> I invite other members to comment on this general theme. The
> TiddlyWiki core should keep its focus and not sacrifice its identity
> to vested interests of the few who, at the moment, can decide its
> direction.
>From what I know, hear and see I don't believe, that user input had
been/is that unimportant for the developers - from my point of view I
would say, the opposite matches even better: no user input means
stagnation. Most improvements were at least forced by user input - or
generated completely of it...
Finally, although I pretty much understand your arguments, I'm a bit
surprised about the strength of the presentation of your
reservations...?
Just my 0.02 EUR
schilke
FND
Thank you for this elaborate posting, schilke!
-- F.
Saq Imtiaz
I think it is well worth mentioning that this is not about bring TiddlyWiki inline with a particular wiki... MediaWiki is being mentioned quite a bit. Rather the question facing us is whether TiddlyWiki should adopt what is essentially a standardized syntax recommended for all wiki's, ie WikiCreole.
Personally I don't care much for conformity with other specific wiki's but am all in favour of adopting a universal standard wherever possible. However, it is imperative that existing users are not left in the lurch. How stable would the conversion tool be and can we make sure there aren't accidental matches? I guess I am thinking of the few problems that Simon had with his "rename links" feature.
Cheers,
Saq
schilke
complete - I didn't mention this:
> I think any change made should be well thought and we definitely need to
> provide both a plugin for backwards compatibility and an automated
> conversion tool if we go down this route
(...)
> However, it is imperative that existing users are not left in the lurch
because that had been totally clear to me following the respective
threads.
Xavier Vergés
tittle makes more sense. I'm left wondering if the goal of allowing
pluggable formatters/wikifiers wasn't to keep everyone happy with
respect to wiki-syntax preferences.
I'm not familiar enough with the micro-kernel approach road-map, but,
won't it be making this vi-vs-emacs type of discussion futile?
And if it is not futile, I'm afraid that we cannot change history, and
this includes both
* a non perfect syntax that is documented and viewable in thousands of
places that will never be updated
* having a huge installed base that has been promised a terric and
simple upgrade mechanism.
So my vote would be to make this an opt-in (however strongly
recommended is opting-in). And probably I'm not saying anything
different that the people that favour this change have been saying.
Boy, that was a redundant post of mine!
-Xv
> Morris Grayhttp://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
Xavier Vergés
-Xv
schilke
should I do that now, too? Probably I'll make a nice signature with
such a disclaimer LOL, err, BTW typos? haven't noticed any...
Morris Gray
> can't choose (if you participate with WikiPedia for example) and that
> TiddlyWiki _can_ and _should_ be used _in conjunction_ with other wikis.
> I'm sure, a lot of users will agree with that.
You can't 'know' that a lot of users would agree. One of my points in
bringing this up is that too often and increasingly often you will see
two people talking on a thread and the next thing you know they want
it listed for a core change without any further consultation with the
user group.
The suggestion in another post to move this discussion the the
Development group is an example; something like obsoleting all
prettylinks in the thousands of existing TiddlyWikis is considered a
development issue more that a user's issue. This discussion belongs
exactly where it is.
It is a fact many users have demonstrated a timidity to even ask
questions let alone tackle a number very aggressive changes to a core
of which they have little understanding. The implications of some
changes can create unintended consequences far beyond the imagination
of the the people who dream them up on the spot.
> And: what about the
> MediaWiki community? They couldn't argue like that (in a referendum
> similar to yours...) because TW for example simply doesn't provide some
> key features needed for a professional multiuser wiki application.
This is exactly my point. TiddlyWiki was never intended to be "a
professional multiuser wiki application" How often have you seen
this, that is the banner on thousands of unadorned TiddlyWikis; "a
reusable non-linear personal web notebook" Notice the word personal.
TiddlyWiki is a dream to work with; in the experiment that is TW Help
I have explored in depth much of what it has to offer. TiddlyWiki is
light, dynamic, versatile and usable. MediaWiki is a clunky, awkward
to use ,and past it's use-by date technically, the only thing it has
to offer is multiuser. MediaWiki is black and white; TiddyWiki is
Technicolor!
As far as standards are concerned I hesitate to compare TiddlyWiki
with Microsoft since the former is user friendly:) However, Microsoft
has become rather rich by deliberately stamping all over standards:)
If there are among us those who wish to take on MediaWiki with a
multiuser version of TiddlyWiki I would more than welcome it. But it
should be a separate project built from the ground up, not by hacking
a very useful and productive "personal" tool that so many fall in love
with at first sight. They do so because it is personal, it does
require a bit of learning, but that's also one of its charms, and once
achieved, people love it even more because it delivers the rewards to
make it all worthwhile.
Here is what someone on another list said about TW Help when they saw
what TiddlyWiki could do.
"Who'd have thunk you could do this kind of stuff in realtime in a
browser with simple markup?"
look at this http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
Nemo
Developer
"lol yeah, that's the part that got me clicking there in the first
place...makes one wonder what the heck php, pearl, cgi and all that
other stuff is fer! lol." you're right, that tutorial is like THE
tutorial to read first man...straighforward, to the point, just how I
like em. ;-).
mystikshadows
Developer
Nobody will ever say something like that about MediaWiki either in use
or application.
> Finally, although I pretty much understand your arguments, I'm a bit
> surprised about the strength of the presentation of your
> reservations...?
I forgot to mention I used to be a speech writer for Che Guevara.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
schilke
> You can't 'know' that a lot of users would agree
ahem, I won't compare my effort into this project with yours - really
not - I appreciate really much what you've done and what you still do
with TiddlyWiki help (and I've been watching it from near beginning)
and I haven't made any surveys regarding the issue - but I am also a
little active with spreading the word and providing support wherever I
can (most of the time not in this group/s here). So I don't just
speculate :-O
I can follow your thoughts here:
> increasingly often you will see two people talking on a thread and the
> next thing you know they want it listed for a core change without any
> further consultation with the user group
and here
> something like obsoleting all prettylinks in the thousands of existing
> TiddlyWikis is considered a development issue more that a user's issue.
> This discussion belongs exactly where it is.
but let me say this: as a (advanced?) user but also a developer in
other open source projects this is a common problem. The difference
between TiddlyWiki and some other projects I know is, that the dev
people here discuss much more issues in the public than in other
groups.
There are a lot of reasons why this is not good all the time, e.g.
- users most of the time don't want to discuss development issues
- users sometimes don't even understand what the developers are
talking about
- users will bring in arguments which don't help to improve the
product
- (those arguments could be really time consumptive to discuss)
... etc.
People who spend their free time with developing and improving a
software that is available to everyone in my opinion _do have the
right_ to modify and improve it to their liking. I would say their
rights morally are even stronger than the users. If it's a good idea
to make critical changes without user feedback - that's a different
story...
The problem with open source development is that you (most of the
time) don't have an identical strong strategy like with commercial
products - but the developers also want to get their plans realized.
>From my experience in other projects I know that you can waste a lot
of time with discussing ideas and changes with regular users too early
and too publically. And if I say "waste time" I really mean "useless
results" - not "they don't want to accept _our_ plans".
This is really a question of perspective. You should consider that
_every single_ TW user could have the same information you have -
there are no secrets. OK, it's an argument that some users don't
really understand what exactly which changes would do - and that a lot
of users never ever will visit this group. But how would you like to
change the current procedure - do you really want to make a referendum
for any minor change?
It's hard enough to do a reliable testing, bug fixing and
documentation (the latter you should know a bit...) - would you say it
makes sense to discuss everything to the end - with a lot of
additional time and work to _explain_ your plans to all users first
(which probably aren't that intersted at all)?
> The implications of some changes can create unintended consequences
> far beyond the imagination of the the people who dream them up on the
> spot
Developers are sitting in windowless rooms with four screens in front
of them while hacking cryptic code into their machines the whole day
and night. The only purpose they're doing this: they are searching for
the holy ultimate subroutine, getting multiple org**ms from viewing
their exciting, beautiful, clean code and from seeing their functions
and features work (which in fact look totally useless and dull to the
regular computer user). Yeah, that's true. Developers are evil. After
their first release they should mainly concentrate on bug fixing,
documentation and support. Sometimes they may improve the product by
user request - but: never ever should they change a tiny bit without
asking (all users) for permission.
Seriously: That's really true in some cases - but rarely :-@
>From my perspective the TiddlyWiki developers act really responsible.
Probably I missed all the cases where changes let users crash into the
wall (without any help or warning). I personally trust the core
developers that they will extensively discuss all pros and contras
before commiting any critical changes and modifications.
> This is exactly my point. TiddlyWiki was never intended to be "a
> professional multiuser wiki application" How often have you seen
> this, that is the banner on thousands of unadorned TiddlyWikis; "a
> reusable non-linear personal web notebook" Notice the word personal
This pretty much still looks like a misunderstanding. I pointed that
out before: I can't see any plans to make TiddlyWiki a multiuser wiki
application - not as a turn around of the development nor as an
additional feature...
Please stop with comparing a wiki application with a database backend
(and a totally different purpose) with
> "a reusable non-linear personal web notebook"
don't mix things up, please. I've had some initial feeling that you
would - and it seems pretty much confirmed. I haven't talked about
bringing TiddlyWiki in as a MediaWiki rival. I was talking about
compatibility, usability and standards.
I believe that many people who (have to) use MediaWiki (or other Wiki
products) will like TiddlyWiki, too (if they don't do already) and
that it's a good idea to develop standards for _all_ wiki software -
not just TiddlyWiki and the poor MediaWiki - you really gave it a
punch ...
> As far as standards are concerned I hesitate to compare TiddlyWiki
> with Microsoft since the former is user friendly:) However, Microsoft
> has become rather rich by deliberately stamping all over standards:)
This one I am personally finding somewhat biting as the lazy standards
policy of that company earned them money while I had to work hours,
days and weeks more :-/
hmm, and what does that mean? Don't use any standards, you do not need
to? Use some? Use some if you like - skip the difficult ones?
If the developers would earn any serious money with TiddlyWiki they
probably would have skipped first the usual "open source standard" to
discuss development with users deliberately -- *jk*
> I forgot to mention I used to be a speech writer for Che Guevara
if I would take that serious - I would probably respond that I am
finding open source developers much more revolutionary over Microsoft
product users *SCNR*
BTW:
> TiddlyWiki is ...
> MediaWiki is ...
from your perspective. Please consider that there are other purposes,
circumstances, environments and opinions...
But if you want it - you get it:
"TiddlyWiki VS MediaWiki"
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=TiddlyWiki&word2=MediaWiki
schilke
Shona.I...@googlemail.com
invaluable while I've been creating a TiddlyWiki library of help files
for the software within my organisation.
Re the PrettyLink debate - speaking as a non-tecchy user adapting
TiddlyWiki for corporate use:
I have dozens of TiddlyWiki files which I admit would be a huge pain
to adjust to the proposed PrettyLink shift to Creole. However, as a
step toward a multi-user TiddlyWiki I wholeheartedly agree that the
change be made. Judging from this discussion group I would argue that
TiddlyWiki has evolved beyond just the 'personal' and feel that the
initial hassle of adjusting links is worth the greater benefit of
adhering to a multi-user standard (for TiddlyWikis designed with an
audience in mind). So long the development continues in open
communication and debate I personally don't see the harm in this?? I
for one would be happy to assist in any TiddlyWiki support/help
documentation detailing the changes for future users.
That's my two cent's worth, anyway!! I'll keep lurking with
interest ;)
> Morris Grayhttp://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
schilke
> to adjust to the proposed PrettyLink shift to Creole
Shona, this is exactly the reason, why it had already been suggested
to
> provide both a plugin for backwards compatibility and an automated
> conversion tool if we go down this route
and: see, Morris, that's a perfect example for what I've meant with
> a lot of additional time and work to _explain_ your plans to all users first
(and apologies, Shona, that I am taking this as an example...)
schilke
Shona.I...@googlemail.com
Morris Gray
I have read your sesquipedalian post with interest.
As a scientist (and revolutionary speech writer :) I say your sample
of one is far too small to be of any value although your use of
inductive logic is charming.
http://tiddlyspot.com/science/#LogicalFallacies
Morris Gray
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
A TiddlyWiki help file for beginners
FND
appreciate if we'd just stick to the the pragmatic issues and not turn
threads into bloated ideological discussions that only confuse regular
users.
Unfortunately, you seem to intentionally ignore the many assurances on
planned backwards compatibility and conversion tools, as well as those
on leaving the ultimate choice to the end user.
So there is no "secret agenda" or conspiracy of any kind.
Again, you - and anyone else, for that matter - could always keep the
legacy PrettyLink syntax even in newer TWs, and still exchange contents
with more progressive TW users.
-- F.
Morris Gray
This is a referendum you are only allowed to vote once :)
Your more progressive TW user,
Morris Gray
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
A TiddlyWiki help file for beginners
Dave Gifford - http://www.giffmex.org/
retype his tutorial. Nyah Nyah... :-). Hey - wait a minute - that
means I'd have to do the same...for the tutorial, for BibblyWiki, for
my Spanish materials...
On second thought... ;-)
Dave
On Aug 23, 8:18 am, Morris Gray <msg...@symbex.net.au> wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> This is a referendum you are only allowed to vote once :)
>
> Your more progressive TW user,
>
> Morris Grayhttp://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
Simon Baird
... the
initial hassle of adjusting links is worth the greater benefit of
adhering to a multi-user standard (for TiddlyWikis designed with an
audience in mind).
Okay I will chip in. Bottom line - I agree with Shona. Well put.
Let's say we agree TiddlyWiki is growing in popularity. If we agree this then we must also agree the number of future new users will eventually be more than the number of current users. So if we are choosing which group to annoy it makes sense to choose the smaller group. And another thing, the changing-the-link-syntax annoyance is short. It's a one-time annoyance. Over time the memory of this brief annoyance will fade. I promise this. However the "oh dammit the link syntax is reversed" annoyance promises to go on forever... :)
Simon.
simon...@gmail.com
Simon Baird
I think Morris doesn't want new syntax because it means he has to
retype his tutorial. Nyah Nyah... :-). Hey - wait a minute - that
means I'd have to do the same...for the tutorial, for BibblyWiki, for
my Spanish materials...
:)... Should it be necessary I volunteer to fix the links in Morris's TW files personally by hand. (I will do it with a Vim macro). Dave, I hope you understand I can't extend this service to just anyone... :)
S.
--
simon...@gmail.com
FND
> files personally by hand.
That's the point; if manual transformation were necessary, I too would
object to such a change.
We need a plugin to do this, which should be relatively easy to do with
some RegEx magic.
-- F.
Morris Gray
popular. What I think you don't understand is that there are users
out there (the silent majority) that have TiddlyWikis all over their
organization; Universities, teachers, students, instruction manuals,
Quality Control manuals, interdepartmental documentation all linked in
complicated ways; some on networks that span the globe. I personally
know of one multinational corporation headquartered in Zürich,
Switzerland with operations in 100 countries with 110,000 employees
where TiddlyWiki is spreading like wildfire. Some people have put
their reputations on the line convincing the boss to let them use this
odd thing called TidddlyWiki for a multitude of applications.
While this group can see no problem using a special tool to change
their few TiddlyWikis and tidy it up afterwards; try explaining to the
a group manager in charge of 20 countries who is fuming at the large
number of TiddlyWikis that after an upgrade and at great time and
expense need each and every one to be modified before they will all
work again.
I hope this change never comes about as I believe it's not necessary.
However I will withhold further comment or judgment until I see the
tools for converting the syntax work. It would be preferable to see
the tools work; and work impeccably well with the final decision to
make the core change contingent upon the proof that these tools can be
used even by the most inexperienced user on any version . I assume
they will work on all instances of pretty links including those
enclosed in triple braces, triple quotes etc. and including those
with tooltips and attached links.
And thanks so much for the offer Simon I'll take you up on it:) I've
also got some gardening and painting to do as well....
Morris Gray
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
A TiddlyWiki help file for beginners
> -- IF.
Paco Rivière
all sort of caution, debate and calm.
I've been working with TW for a long time, with a lot of context in
the actual syntax, and in charge of the Catalan translation. But I am
sure this would help many newcomers.
On Aug 23, 3:48 pm, "Simon Baird" <simon.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Shona.Isbis...@googlemail.com <Shona.Isbis...@googlemail.com>
Ken Girard
even when your dead.
And I cast my vote for moving towards a more universal syntex.
Question: Isn't there a way to tell your TW to use MediaWiki syntex
already? Something to do with being able to import from various wikis?
I haven't tried using this feature (yet) so I don't really know what,
how or if it works.
Ken Girard
On Aug 23, 8:18 am, Morris Gray <msg...@symbex.net.au> wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> This is a referendum you are only allowed to vote once :)
>
> Your more progressive TW user,
>
> Morris Grayhttp://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
> A TiddlyWiki help file for beginners
>
> On Aug 23, 10:24 pm, FND <Ace_No...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let's just get back to the issue at hand here; I think we would all
> > appreciate if we'd just stick to the the pragmatic issues and not turn
> > threads into bloated ideological discussions that only confuse regular
> > users.
>
> > Unfortunately, you seem to intentionally ignore the many assurances on
> > planned backwards compatibility and conversion tools, as well as those
> > on leaving the ultimate choice to the end user.
>
> > So there is no "secret agenda" or conspiracy of any kind.
> > Again, you - and anyone else, for that matter - could always keep the
> > legacy PrettyLink syntax even in newer TWs, and still exchange contents
> > with more progressive TW users.
>
> > -- F.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
schilke
> As a scientist (and revolutionary speech writer :) I say your sample
> of one is far too small to be of any value although your use of
> inductive logic is charming
thanks for the invitation - but you should know (if you didn't
already) that I'm a "math dislexic" somehow (probably the reason I am
more into design and writing and not a geeky programmer or university
professor) - plus I am not a native English speakin' person. So pure
and theoretical, scientific discussions and arguments in a foreign
language aren't made for my simple brain. They are automatically
directed to /dev/null before they reach my slow main processing unit.
But I can assure you, that I brake for scientists ;-)
> A core update that disables most of a users links will not be at all
> popular
What we think _you_ don't understand in return, is, that the core
update we're discussing here won't disable any link. It's as simple as
that.
If, against all experiences, some of those
> users out there (the silent majority) that have TiddlyWikis all over their
> organization; Universities, teachers, students
etc.
will:
- update their TiddlyWiki to a newer version
- plus: they are unfamiliar with updating
- plus: they don't care to make any backups for important data
- plus: they process their update without using their brain and/or
reading any documentation, instruction, help or changelog
- plus: they made extensive use of pretty links in their TiddlyWikis
they might run into a problem.
If one of the above doesn't match - chances are good they won't care
about the big deal we're discussing here.
> However I will withhold further comment or judgment until I see the
> tools for converting the syntax work. It would be preferable to see
> the tools work; and work impeccably well with the final decision to
> make the core change contingent upon the proof that these tools can be
> used even by the most inexperienced user on any version
if you don't stop - I won't, too, for now. You're praising the
developers of TiddlyWiki for their great piece of software, but you
still allege, that they either wouldn't care about any users, nor
should they be able to recognize what consequences their changes might
have for the users.
Sorry, but I am slightly shading off from initial astonishment into
shaking off my head...
schilke
Morris Gray
> update we're discussing here won't disable any link. It's as simple as
> that.
That's great! My fears have been unfounded. Now all you have to do is
prove it and all this titillating conversation will have been been
only for fun and getting to know one another :)
> Sorry, but I am slightly shading off from initial astonishment into
> shaking off my head...
Yes, it truly is an astonishing world. As your life progresses I'm
sure you will be astonished at many more things besides someone not
just taking your word for something, but requires that you prove it.
http://tiddlyspot.com/science/#TheScientificMethod
Since I now realize English is not your first language I've remembered
on my science site there is also a list of a couple of hundred English
words for non-English speakers you might be interested in. I might
turn you into a scientist yet:)
http://tiddlyspot.com/science/#OneHundredWords2%20OneHundredWords
Morris Gray
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
A TiddlyWiki help file for beginners
On Aug 25, 9:12 pm, schilke <googlegroups.tt.ch...@xoxy.net> wrote:
> Morris,
>
> > As a scientist (and revolutionary speech writer :) I say your sample
> > of one is far too small to be of any value although your use of
> > inductive logic is charming
>
schilke
> sure you will be astonished at many more things besides someone not
> just taking your word for something, but requires that you prove it
this is either pure sarcasm or you seem to suppose, I left school just
recently...?
Ummh, no comment...
But even if you were right - "proves" are a thing I'm pretty familiar
with. Just to give you an idea: did you know, that Germany is the
world champion with the number of laws and regulations? Our tax law,
for example, consists of about 70.000 different rules and regulations.
If you plan to found a company in Germany you have to pay attention to
nothing less than 85.000 single rules, formalities or requirements. If
you live here, you have to proof just everything (by at least filling
out 3 forms and sending in 1 official approval per issue)... just
declaration and/or _ap_proval won't be enough most of the time :-/
And I would translate "taking your word for something" with "believe"
- that pretty much could be left to creationists (and to satisfy the
scientist in you: I mean the scientific theory, not the religious
aspect).
Personally - to give your fears some food again** - I am more into the
trial & error method, archaic and uneffective - but: it gives you,
hmm, how should I say?...
sorry, seems that I don't have any scientific explanation available -
beyond other practical aspects and the limitations of a non-scientist,
it gives you the feeling to have balls at least :-+
> http://tiddlyspot.com/science/#OneHundredWords2%20OneHundredWords
nice hint - awesome ressource for future conversations - immediately
bookmarked as "essential" ;-)
--
schilke
** = just kidding - I'm quite sure that _my_ vote doesn't count too
much for the core developers of TiddlyWiki ;-)
schilke
--
schilke
FND
There is:
http://www.martinswiki.com/#MediaWikiFormatterPlugin
But that plugin obviously has a very different scope.
-- F.
Ken Girard
harmony.
Maybe have a 'LegecyPrettyLink' plugin that looks for something like
an "OldTW" tag to know that it should use the old method.
Might even see about just using "OldTW" (or something) as a universal
tag for all 'Legecy' plugins correcting just these kinds of changes.
Meaning that if a tiddler is tagged "OldTW" due to old style pretty
links, and then we change the way we do some other bit of syntex, say
XYZ, then "OldTW" would tell the LegecyXYZPlugin to function here as
well. This way I still don't need to update my tiddlers when I import
them into TW 35.0.
Ken Girard
FND
> harmony.
> Maybe have a 'LegecyPrettyLink' plugin that looks for something like
> an "OldTW" tag to know that it should use the old method.
Exactly what I was suggesting in the original thread.
I will bring this up with Jeremy and The Crew next month, so this whole
discussion really is quite premature.
-- F.
Dave Gifford - http://www.giffmex.org/
go through and change the link formatting. What is the advantage? Or
will there be an easier way to tag all old tiddlers?
DG
FND
> go through and change the link formatting. What is the advantage? Or
> will there be an easier way to tag all old tiddlers?
I understand that, but take a look at the original proposal:
http://tinyurl.com/ypuyzb
(http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev/browse_thread/thread/8e4889dbc861f0ef)
The plans and requirements are all described there, in detail.
But, again, this is all very premature; the whole thing might be dropped
anyway, or implemented in a very different fashion, or ... or ... or ...
So my suggestion would be to just drop this for now and get back to it
once there's actually something substantial to talk about.
-- F.