I'll be posting the code sometime this week.
The difference in logic is that in your code the order and relationship using tags while I am using fields. That should not be difficult to adapt.
Mark, this is great for situations where we know we'll want fine-grained tiddlers down the road, but authoring and viewing want a more unified interface (with easy transitions between authoring and viewing).
One potential frustration came up while I checked out NotoWritey: if I'm reading/viewing without any intention to edit, and I click on a visible link such as Philosophy of Tiddlers, the link doesn't behave like a link; any click just sends us into edit mode.
It surfaces another issue, which is that trying to select text in view mode triggers the click (and editing). I have a couple of workarounds in mind, will investigate soon.
You can use it to create any html element with an onclick handler that triggers actions.
This seems to be like a question TT might ask, "What is a document?"In this case, a document is a series of tiddlers chained together by a common tag. Once you have found a tiddler, you have also found the tag and can reconstruct the entire "document". It doesn't matter what the name of the original tiddler was when it was invoked, just like it doesn't matter that you don't have parchment in the printer when printing the Declaration of Independence.
NotoWritey
NotoWritey (everyone get the pun?) now has a new look. It looks almost like a regular displayed tiddler, filling the whole story river and only highlights when you mouse over the text. You can now navigate to other tiddlers. You can also navigate to external tiddlers, though unfortunately it will trigger the paragraph/section into edit mode because the TW link catcher doesn't catch external links.
<<<
"Fragmentally, my dear, I don't give a damn!"
--Down With The Wind
<<<
That said, I'm thinking of putting an option on the bottom of the "document" to generate a tiddler with the complete text and maybe links back to the "document" tiddler
Mark S. wrote:NotoWritey
New riot toy
Wrote in toy
This seems to be like a question TT might ask, "What is a document?"
<article class="tt-article-movement">
<section class="head">
{{notoHeadSquirt}}
</section>
<section class="body">
{{notoBodySquirt}}
</section>
<section class="foot">
{{notoFootSquirt}}
</section>
<section class="style">
{{notoArticleStyle}}
</section>
</article>
This would work well as a view template.
I have started writing some structured material which has intro body and conclusion. A version of this would be nice.
An aside it is possible to create multiple text area fields on one tiddler you just can't edit them in the edit template fields editor. Do these could be stored in one tiddler.
Regards
Tony
It’s an ingenious solution, but I see the same problem in it as in bullet list solutions: it makes searching cumbersome. For example, if I search for "create", only that paragraph will be included in the search results, so if I want to see the original tiddler, I have to search back by its name. I don’t know if it simplifies or complicates life.
Ciao Mark
1 - Accidental SplittingIt possible to split accidentally where you don't want to, for instance ...
<<<
"Fragmentally, my dear, I don't give a damn!"
--Down With The Wind
<<<
Ciao Mark1 - Accidental SplittingIt possible to split accidentally where you don't want to, for instance ...
<<<
"Fragmentally, my dear, I don't give a damn!"
--Down With The Wind
<<<
I'm thinking that the solution might be to give the user the opportunity to declare the (html) tag they want to use with a fragment. Whether there might be a gap between two fragments with the same coding might be an advanced consideration for later. This approach would mean that you would specify your text without the outer markup (e.g. <<<). This means that when you navigate to the individual tiddler, it wouldn't display the markup (though a template could be created to do that somewhere down the line).The other approach, and probably simpler, would be to have a checkbox "Don't split" which would prevent the "Close" button from splitting up this particular tiddler. This might pose a problem if your enclosed text was large with many paragraphs, since you're then losing the benefit of NW.Thoughts?
Crusoe came to Crusoe to complain that Crusoe was complaining about Crusoe.
#Crusoe #complaint
Mark S. wrote:This seems to be like a question TT might ask, "What is a document?"LOL. Quickly picking up on that point ... whilst the iron is hot.
The auto split is great but no spit will allow us to choose when. I have cases where I expect fragments to be reusable. I think it would be interesting if we could apply a wiki text wrapper on each fragment. A quote fragment will possibly always be a quote, a code fragment always code. The advantage of fragments that are tiddlers is you can do all sorts of customizations on each.
I really like what you have done. Its inspirational. I can only suggest you may make a MVP but this could be much more mature concept for fragments or compound tiddlers in future essentially using you front end concept. The idea that fragments are made in line is wonderful, much better than excising.
If you can make it general in nature with perhaps the ability to toggle view and edit and to load the fragments in a way they respond to a class or template field in the fragment tiddler itself you are on to something revolutionary.
You could say with your fragmented or compound tiddlers that the tiddler is reasserting itself as the atomic unit.
The mind boggles
Tony
! Animals
* cat
* dog
! Colors
* red
* blue
This would be wiki text for fragmenting in a way. Perhaps when typing not when pasting external content because you will first have check before pasting. Perhaps when auto split is off the author can add <spilt> and will, removing the split. Perhaps we could set the split condition on the document.
The next trick will be combining fragments.
Regards
Tony
- You can now do <<noto>> inside a tiddler and it will attempt to default to using the current tiddler as the document tag.
- New prompts for initialization, with some help to make the initial tiddler based on the current file name
- A "no split" option
- A delete button
Be sure to backup anything that's important, since the new stuff is barely tested and lots of internal changes had to happen.
<<<
Three things I have trouble remembering...
1. When...
2. Why...
3. What was the question?
<<< —Somebody
@@float:right; If I don't try...
<hr>
I won't succeed.
@@
Good idea but how?
do share
Tony
With auto split off could we have the convention that something like <hr> or <split> trigger a split but be removed from the result?
I would like to see this hybridised with saq's list innovation.
Regards
Tony
<<<
My Hamster went feral.
--Pet fallacy
<<<
MarkS,
It’s an ingenious solution, but I see the same problem in it as in bullet list solutions: it makes searching cumbersome. For example, if I search for "create", only that paragraph will be included in the search results, so if I want to see the original tiddler, I have to search back by its name. I don’t know if it simplifies or complicates life.
One solution might be to store the original tiddler of the paragraph in a field and create a view template that displays a link to the original tiddler at the bottom of the paragraph tiddler. Although in this case, renaming the original tiddler breaks the connection because it does not rewrite it in every field. However, this problem also exists with the current operation: if I rename the "How To Use NotoWritey" tiddler in the demo, I can't retrieve the parent based on the title of the paragraphs because they still contain the original title.I feel a growing need to be able to identify tiddlers by an always constant UUID in the TiddlyWiki core as well.
I think if people want a detailed split, then they should use the slicer edition. The SE uses the sax.js library to break down things atomically. However, even it doesn't always get it right -- you see remainders of HTML tags in the sample split. The problem with the slicer edition is that the result isn't really portable -- it needs to be viewed inside the slicer edition, AFAIK.
I... 'm also thinking of adding the ability to allow the user to join up the next X items. So you could join the next 3 paragraphs to the current tiddler, mark them as "no split", and just keep that as one "semantic unit.". Behind the scenes, the original paragraphs would be deleted.
There are buttons to save all-up HTML to clipboard or a specified tiddler, and corresponding buttons for wiki text. These new options are on the bottom of your document.
One of my intended goals is to bring outlining capability in some fashion to TW.
On "split" the new tiddler does not honor Content Type of its progenitor.
That is problematic if, say, you splitting a large plain text tiddler as it will come out as the standard default type after spli.
Okay for one or two, not in a whole Noto Novel.
You can see the issue here, second item ... https://tidbits.wiki/noto/notowritey%20(15).html#.tt%2Fedit%2Ftweets%20-%20wip
Would it be possible on split to replicate the CT of the split in the splitee?
A common issue in writing is you make a version of a paragraph but its not quite right so you make a copy and work on that.
Sometimes many times. Till you get a version that works. Then you delete the others.
Would it be possible to have a Clone Button on the bottom edit bar?
Often when you are writing there are troublesome paragraphs you not sure how to fix.
For these you need to bookmark them and be able to visit then separately from the main text.
Especially if its large.
Could there ability to have a Bookmark Button on the bottom edit bar that
(a) adds a tag that is
(b) defined by user in config on per Noto Doc basis.
FYI the "WIP" section in my demo is a Noto to edit Bookmarked specific items from
the other Noto instances there (using a tag I created manually on each).
Often I will want use to use a Noto Instance with "Split" globally OFF as the norm.
For instance a series of tweets like: https://tidbits.wiki/noto/notowritey%20(15).html#.tt%2Fedit%2Ftweets%20-%20%23bottledWater
Remembering to have to switch off one by one "split" would be prone to error.
Could split setting default be set in config section on a per Noto Instance basis?
Say I'm using a Noto Instance to revise some tiddlers.
And I'm finished editing one of them. I no longer need it in the Noto Instance.
Could there be a DeNoto Button to remove the Noto tag from the Tiddler?
Quick note. Great! I'll update a couple of examples to fit the new & post later.Mark S. wrote:More updates. You can now hide the edit toolbar if you want. There are buttons to save all-up HTML to clipboard or a specified tiddler, and corresponding buttons for wiki text. These new options are on the bottom of your document.
Ciao Mark.SI'm aware you at work on outlining. I just wanted record notes before I forget. No hurry at all.Here is example usage for basic editing, where the "document" is basically the same in "edit" & "view". I wanted to give you a live example so you can see the issues I mention below. Its transcludes 4 Noto Instances ...
The only downside of the WikiText saved version is it can't respect Content Type. So if you have more than the standard content type in a Noto Doc its not always 100% accurate. I think its unavoidable?
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 5:22:55 AM UTC-7, TiddlyTweeter wrote:Ciao Mark.SI'm aware you at work on outlining. I just wanted record notes before I forget. No hurry at all.Here is example usage for basic editing, where the "document" is basically the same in "edit" & "view". I wanted to give you a live example so you can see the issues I mention below. Its transcludes 4 Noto Instances ...Wow. That Crusoe seems like Dr. Who meets Godot. It's interesting that "Crusoe" didn't stick in literature, but we still have "Robinson" in "Lost in Space" 300 years later.
TiddlyTweeter wrote:On #6, I'm not sure how you're thinking of revisiting. Perhaps show a condensed version of the document, with just the "bookmarked" items ?
After splitting into your 4000 pieces, how was performance for additional, normal splits?
If there's a serious split problem, then the question is, do we:1. Advise people to stick with shorter documents
2. Use some other mechanism for ordering the tiddlersA simple ordering system would be to have a field, "sortby". Then on the first split you would have001.002.003.and then an additional split at 002. might look like001.002.001002.002003.
and after 002.001. :001.002.001002.001.001002.001.002002.002003.Obviously this field could get quite long.The main reason I didn't pursue this path was because I was thinking about outlining. For outlining, it needs to be easy to traverse up and down (actually more "up") a chain of tiddlers. The list filter operators built into TW allow you to do that.
I'm assuming that the greater utility of an outliner/editor makes any performance hit worthwhile, but I guess it will be easier to judge that when I post the outlner tw.I can post it now, but important pieces are unfinished. In particular, when you split, the new tiddlers aren't assigned a level and fold status, and so disappear. The interface isn't using standard icons. But if you want to have a peak:Click on the "hamburg" to change levels. Click on the fold/unfold symbols to change fold status.There's a tool tiddler for converting existing documents into outline documents (just adds level and fold fields).
I'm working on a simple editor for TW. It combines ideas from the Slicer edition plus the idea of object creation from TiddlyBlink to create a somewhat Dynalist-like experience (except no outlining yet). In Dynalist you seamlessly switch from display mode to edit mode by just clicking on the working text.Has something like this already been done? Does this look useful? Or just more of the same?Note: In the following, you should see screenshots. Sometimes GG likes to omit them ...You start with your editor like this. The existing tiddlers are clickable text:Clicking on a link opens up an editor where you can add more text:When you close the editor, paragraphs are split out into their own editable sections:Behind the scenes, tiddlers are created based on the original (pre-split) tiddler name. Everything is held together by a common tag, which also provides the ordering.
TiddlyTweeter wrote:Anything but the default (text/vnd.tiddlywiki) But my biggest issue is type "text/plain" as I use that a lot.
Might require a case by case response. So for text/plain perhaps the text could be wrapped with """ quotes?
A simple list of the transclusion "{{item 1}} {{item 2}} etc" in order could be used to quickly construct/reconstruct a "document" not dependent on Noto.
Not essential, but if simple to do, useful.
Could a sequence of transclusions be saved via button under NoteWritey Settings?
I mentioned this before (but not under a number :). It seems to me this is v. important.
Because tools exist that could wreak havoc in the Tag list field and IF you don't have a backup of its precise order one could get badly squidooed.
So, could there be a button under NoteWritey Settings to copy the Tag tiddler so one has a precise snapshot?
Mark,Could you update the lead post with the links to you working editions if possible, please.
notowritey, is it notoriously useful, or what?
Hopefully self explanatory.
In use would allow user to hide settings when they don't need to see them.
Given that using Noto in edit the user would be likely only interested in "Link" click
to edit a Tiddler would it not be better to just directly open it for edit?