I've been slowly working away at a TW for bible study, using the World
English Bible (public domain) and have just finished inputting (using
Udo's pure store TW, notepad, and a spreadsheet) all of 1Samuel with
each verse as a separate tiddler, and its already slowing down.
(here: http://biblestudy.tiddlyspot.com/ )

I think where I'm going to have to go is with having each book as a
separate TW on a website and using includePlugin to go get the books
and verses as needed (I think I read somewhere that you can delay the
call for what's included until needed in real time)

Anyway, the whole point of this TW is to be able to do your own
annotation and adding of links to whats already there.

Q:  Is there some existing way or approach that would allow one to
annotate (e.g. add highlighting or bolding or links from text) an
included and therefore unchanging tiddler, and save that annotation
for yourself (or to share) while another person could use those same
source tiddlers and annotate to their hearts content and save that in
their own TW?  Microsoft Reader has a separate annotation file, and
that's the approach I'm thinking of.

Dave Parker

Dave,
Have you considered TiddlyChatter?
It could work something like this:
1. Source Tiddlywiki (TiddlyChatter enabled) has the tiddler content and
generates an RSS.
2. Each individual has a subscription Tiddlywiki (TiddlyChatter enabled)
that subscribes to this source RSS file and synchronises with the source.
This effectively imports the tiddlers from the source and allows each
individual to add notes/comments (which are seperate tiddlers) in their own
Tiddlywiki. While it is possible to edit the source tiddler, the next time
you synchronise from the source you may loose any changes to the original
text but not your notes.

That's it - See attached image for a sample tiddler in the subscription
Tiddlywiki (TiddlyChatter enabled) . Does this work for you?

Dawn.

On 10/23/07, Dave Parker <cedar...@telus.net> wrote:

--
http://dahukanna.net

SampleTiddlerWithNotes.jpg 75K Download

Hi Dave,

I don't have any technical advice to offer, but I'm interested in this
question because I too would like to put up big texts to be
annottated / indexed - in my case I'm interested in parliamentary
hearings on issues of public policy.

First Question: speed.

What exactly are the slow spots?
#1 it takes a while to load, initially - and this will get worse as
you add the other books

#2 Because the text is broken up into so many tiddlers, it sometimes
takes a while to display things.  For example, this table is a bit
slow:
http://biblestudy.tiddlyspot.com/#%5B%5B1st%20Samuel%5D%5D
And clicking on the first chapter from the table is slow to bring a
whole list of tiddlers - all the verses, I guess they're called.

Are these the slow points you're seeing?

Which of these problems would be solved by load on demand / lazy
loading, which I gather is in the works?  #1, I think, but not #2.  Is
that right, can anyone confirm?  Even with deferred loading, a TW that
has to display 20+ tiddlers is going to be slow.  If that's right, it
suggests using fewer tiddlers for the same amount of text (bigger
tiddlers - say, 5 verses at a time).

Second Question: Input.

Suppose I have a series of HTML files of my Parliamentary hearings.
Is there any way to get this material into TW without copy and
pasting?  That would take forever, plus each tiddler would have to be
manually tagged with time, date, speaker etc.   Lots of error.  Has
anyone done any work on automated conversion into TW format?  People
have already put together a large number of online texts - for
example, in the Liberty Fund's Online Library of Liberty.  Some of
those are PDF of actual public domain books, but some are also html
versions.  It would be fantastic if there were a way of taking those
texts and "dumping" them into TW.

Third Question: Display.

When a longer text is broken up  into smaller tiddlers, for purposes
of easy cross-referencing and indexing, the separations between
tiddlers become distracting when trying to read the whole text.  Have
you experimented with the older TW style, without the grey background?

On Oct 23, 5:24 pm, Dave Parker <cedar...@telus.net> wrote:

Thanks Dawn for the reply

It partially does, but I'd really like to somehow get direct
annotation of a tiddler as a "layer" over top of the original
content.  That's why I have the word "stupid" in the title of this
question, i.e. I have great doubts that what I want actually is
acheivable with TW right now - but then I've been wrong many times
before, so I thought I'd give it a try.

TiddlyChatter does look interesting though.  Looking at the screenshot
you provided, I assume those are all tiddlers that are attached to a
single tiddler in the source document, and the "add note" at the end
means add another note to that one source document?

Lets say I did want to use this, and lets say the anticipated deferred
loading of included tiddlers has arrived: would you be able to add a
note to one of the included tiddlers?

Dave

Hi Andrew, responses are within your text

On Oct 24, 6:11 am, Andrew Lister <lis...@post.queensu.ca> wrote:

Aside:  Another related use of TW is for reference to minutes of prior
meetings (hearings?).  I put all the minutes from previous meetings
(church board meetings) in a single TW with Udos great
YourSearchPlugin (that is Udo's right (maybe Eric?)).  Its great for
looking up to see if certain things are in the constitution or not -
and it has already saved 30 minutes of discussion about things we'd
already decided on 4 months earlier.

Yes this is one part of the issue - 1Samuel alone has over 800
verses.  Its only moderately slow on my newer computer, but horrendous
on my ancient computer at home.  Putting the entire bible in would be
a show stopper.

Yup.  I think I could make the second part speed up (possibly) by
switching to just having the individual verses tagged by the chapter
tiddler and then opening all subtiddlers, but that would subtract from
ease of use.  Right now I'm using code that someone (I think it was
FND) gave me on a previous thread - it searches for all tiddlers with
a certain value int he title.  I'd assume if all the verses already
have the tag that rendering them all would be faster.

Yes, I've thought of that.  Originally I had the entire chapter as a
single tiddler, but theoretically when I have the whole bible in
place, I'd want to be able to refer to single verses from one book and
see just that verse appear (e.g. say you're reading the book of
Mathew, and there's a reference to Daniel or Revelation, I just want a
peek at the reference - not the entire book out of which you'd have to
hunt down the original verse (now if I could somehow lasso
YourSearchPlugin into the process, that might be helpful))

This also was a big hurdle.  I don't know if this would help you with
html files, but I'll elaborate a bit on what I did.  I made use of
this: http://www.abego-software.de/references/TiddlyWikiPureStoreFormat.html
.  I copied the pure store code into a spreadsheet and made it so you
could just plunk in the tiddler text as a column in the spreadsheet.
My source was a copy of World English Bible that already had the
verses as single rows of ascii text (which helped) so I then went back
and forth between notepad and the spreadsheet tweaking things until I
could plunk in the titles and text into the sheet, then copy the
entire thing into notepad and rename the extension as "html".  from
that point you can then just "import all"  the tiddlers into your
target TW.  I haven't tried this with the source being html from the
start.

yes, that's on my todo list (as well as figuring out how to get rid of
the spaces inbetween the tiddlers

- Dave

Dave,

provided, I assume those are all tiddlers that are attached to a single
tiddler in the source document, and the "add note" at the end means add
another note to that one source document?
The notes are in the subscription TiddlyWiki. The source Tiddlywiki does not
get changed at all. Add another note will add a tiddler in the subscription
TiddlyWiki only. So what you have is a master-slave scenario. See the
attached diagram - MasterSlaveScenario.jpg.

loading of included tiddlers has arrived: would you be able to add a note to
one of the included tiddlers?
As you have full control of your separate subscriber Tiddlywiki [slave], you
can add notes to a included/synchronised tiddler with no impact on the
original source tiddler.

Dawn

On 10/24/07, Dave Parker <cedar...@telus.net> wrote:

--
http://dahukanna.net

MasterSlaveScenario.jpg 30K Download

thanks Dawn (pictures are appreciated! that makes it very clear)

(I saw threads on the TiddlywikiDiv site about this but thought
(without reading it) it was some reference to something like Google
Talk)

Dave,
You are welcome.

I'm a simple gal and as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. :-)

Dawn

On 10/24/07, Dave Parker <cedar...@telus.net> wrote:

--
http://dahukanna.net

I read somewhere in the dev group by Jeremy, that TiddlyWiki would be
still responding reasonably with 3 MB. I didn't understand what he
talked about - if mine slows down already considerable at 1 MB?!?

So I made the test, before I would start converting huge amounts of
text into a TiddlyWiki and possible having to give up at one point
because of unresponsiveness.

However, I heeded the words of Jeremy - that it would be reasonably
responding only with a MINIMUM of plugins enabled!

What else would be more worthwhile for such an experiment - pushing
and knowing the limits of TiddlyWiki - other then the sum total of all
systemConfig, macro, script and stylesheet Tiddler available out
there?

Therefore I imported all these in one single TiddlyWiki with the
ImportPlugin, which lets you choose only those tiddler tagged with the
above mentioned Tags. However, only enabling a minimum of Plugins with
the systemConfig tag.

Although it became a complete mess in terms of content (to many
different versions of Plugins overwritting each other..) - by now I
arrived at 5.87 MB with about 1200 tiddlers (of which half were
originally tagged with systemConfig).

This TW taken at it's core functions is still responding as a TW below
1 MB! And if I compare the swiftness of this TW with the time
biblestudy needs to respond (for example just opening the tags tab -
Jeremy was absolutely right that it is the plugins, which slows a
TiddlyWiki down! (except -  for saving [20 sec] and reloading [10])

You have 54 !! plugins enabled in biblestudy, so really no wonder why
already now it's so lame. Just disable the number of your plugins by
2/3 (of which most are anyway unnecessary because of having equal
functions) - and you will be really surprised at your  biblestudies
new speed!

(One small suggestion though, don't use GoToPlugin. I don't know why,
but YourSearch is still quick at about 6 MB - while Goto needs more
than seconds for each single letter. Additionally, you don't even need
to install YourSearch with the following script as a tiddler tagged
with systemConfig!:

//{{{
(function()
{
var script=document.createElement("script");
script.src="http://tiddlywiki.abego-software.de/archive/
YourSearchPlugin/Plugin-YourSearch-src.2.1.1.js";
script.onload=function()
{refreshPageTemplate();displayMessage("YourSearch has been loaded");};
document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(script);

//}}}

I agree.

Also the PartTiddlerPlugin would help still being able to call
individual verses, while leaving the whole text one. EasySlicer would
make this not too much of a huge task.

One straight way of "dumping" html files and converting them to
tiddlers is the great FileDropPlugin of BradleyMeck:

(http://bradleymeck.tiddlyspot.com/#FileDropPlugin)

With this you are really able to drop .txt, php., html... files into a
TW - and instantly a tiddler is created with its content! Each such
tiddler - in the case of html - only needs to be enclosed by
<html> ...droped source code... </html> , and the text displays nicely
formatted. (and this enclosing with <html> .. </html> could be easily
done by the ViewTemplate too).

The only hindrance to this would be that html files usually have much
unnecessary overhead code - bloating such a TW even further.

A great option for this would be ArchivePlugin. Because - as far as I
understood it - it only loads tiddlers one by one when you
individually call them. It does that by only keeping the meta data of
each tiddler in its storeArea (title, modifier, tags, fields), and
storing the plain text of each tiddler, as it is visible in the editor
window, to an external .html file each.

Hope I could provide something helpful to your tasks,

Regards,

W.

Yup, just double checked it ;-) and imported my huge TiddlyWiki into
an empty one, and while importing these 1200 tiddlers with
ImportPlugin, this Plugin is also the most convenient way to add the -
for the ArchivePlugin necessary - 'Archive' tag to each of these
tiddlers. (every other plugin would take ages to add a tag to so many
tiddler at once)

Now the first save took about 35 seconds, during which all these
tiddlers where saved separately in the subfolder 'archive'.
But the second save and reload took just as long as a 500 kb TW
takes!!! (it grew to this size by all the meta data)

And all archived tiddlers ready to be called there in the sidebartabs!
- Really amazing!!

This ArchivePlugin - for including many MBs - has clearly beaten
IncludePlugin (which takes almost as long to include the 6 MB TW as
the ArchivePlugin needed to make its first save) at great length.

Though the single - or only double - file philosophy gone ;-)

W.

PS: forgotten to add the sources of some of the mentioned plugins:
http://jackparke.googlepages.com/jtw.html#ArchivePlugin
http://www.tiddlytools.com/#ImportTiddlersPlugin
http://tiddlywiki.abego-software.de/#PartTiddlerPlugin

thanks Wolfgang for your thoughts on this.  It's a lot to take in and
play around with.  I'll probably have some more questions for you in a
week or so, but this sure looks promising.  Oh yeah, I looked at my
plugins like you suggested and disabled a whack of them and it did
seem to speed things up.  I even noticed that I had multiple versions
of the same plugins with slight spelling differences (what can I say?
- I'm just a hack!)

Anyway, I'm going to have to take some time and play around with all
of this.  My first thought though is with the archive plugin, can you
still edit the tiddlers?

Thanks again,
Dave

Yes, editing works just as usual from within the TiddlyWiki.

What makes this method with the ArchivePlugin even more attractive:
You can open these separate tiddler .html files (which, by the way,
have the same name as the tiddler title) in the subfolder with just
any full blown editor with more advanced editing features.

- Opening up the further possibility of dropping a whole bunch of
such .html files (which have been converted before into tiddlers with
the FiledropPlugin) into such an editor and batch remove the whole
html code overhead in one go! (also minimizing the serious high risk
of having the javascript of a TW damaged by an editor when editing the
whole of a TW)

A big 'thanks' for this Plugin to Jack, - and to you, Dave for having
asked these questions ;-)

W.

PS: take care not to import all tiddlers of a TiddlyWiki AND adding
the tag 'Archive' to ALL of them. Because then you would end up with a
blank TW - as I did in my first try - with only the backstage
remaining visible. - As far as I can tell till now, all the
stylesheets, templates and plugin tiddler contents have to remain
within the TW!

Just checked also on this, if there wouldn't be a Tag Batch Renaming
Plugin beside the Import/ExportTiddlersPlugin - which could alter the
tag 'Archive' instantly - compared to TiddlerTweaker of Eric of
MultiTagEditor of Ido - to have the 6 MB TiddlyWiki back as one whole
file again.

And with TaggerPlugin of Saq this is indeed possible in an wink of an
eyelid.

(http://tw.lewcid.org/#TaggerPlugin)

:-)

W.

Sorry for the mistake, I meant to elaborate on this one paragraph:

W.

http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#GotoPlugin (v1.4.1)

has been updated to *vastly* reduce the key-by-key performance
overhead: the 'master' list of all tiddlers, shadows, and tags is now
retrieved and cached on the first keypress.  In addition, I replaced
the use of regular expressions for matching tiddler titles, and now
use simple "indexOf" comparisons.

The result: while the overhead for the first keypress was only reduced
by a little bit, the processing needed for each subsequent keystroke
was decreased by TWO orders of magnitude (from around 95ms, down to
less than 1ms! in a document containing 320 tiddlers).

I think you'll find that GotoPlugin is now MUCH more responsive when
used in larger TW documents.  In fact, I tested it with a document
containing 1000 tiddlers, and the improvement is even more dramatic.
While the first keystroke took about 200ms, the overhead for the
following keystrokes was still <1ms!!

enjoy,
-e
Eric Shulman
TiddlyTools / ELS Design Studios

Wolfgang:
re GotoPlugin,  I did take it out initially as per your suggestion but
put it back in because its perfect for finding tiddler (in this case
"verse") names only, rather than the plethora of instances of partial
matches that you get with YourSearchPlugin.

Eric:
I just updated GotoPlugin, and yes, its very much faster - Thank you
for mentioning it here.

Dave

Well. the biggest disadvantage is that the tiddler archived by
ArchivePlugin doesn't get written by the ForEachTiddlerPlugin at all!
Also SliceGridPlugin only writes the titles - and nothing from within
the Slices of archived tiddlers.

Does anyone have any idea of a possible workaround for this problem?

There also remains the hope for Martin's upcoming LocalAdaptorPlugin
to have some solution to this.

Dave, you could also simply have narrowed YourSearch to look for
titles only.

Eric, your quick responses to the needs of TiddlyWiki users is just
charming.

Regards,

W.

Sorry, but I concluded to early. In the process of updating to TW
2.2.6 one tiddler I used as a parameter with the ForEach call was lost
during the update process.

Having copied this tiddler manually - and ForEach does indeed work on
archived tiddler.

However, with SliceGrids this problem does exist.

W.

Well, in this thread I beat myself in making mistakes.

I saw the nicely formated table of the ForEach macro and off I went to
correct my earlier post.

However, haven't really looked at the content of the tables - which
actually remained "undefined"

:-(

On 26 Okt., 18:38, wolfgang <wolfgangl...@gmail.com> wrote: