Basic Errors: Things I Misunderstood At First ...

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Before I completely lose "Beginners Mind" I thought to comment that ...

• It took me 6 months to realise that a "blank" ContentType is actually "text/vnd.tiddlywiki" (yes?). BTW, WHY can it be BLANK? 

• It took me 9 months to realise that I could mix HTML code with WikiText. For a long time I was under the illusion that if I used HTML tags I must use ContentType "text/html".

I'm not sure if I'm typical on this. I wonder IF it was my error? Or whether the info is clear enough in basic docs?? 

Did you have early confusions? What were they?

Best wishes

TT

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Repeat for emailers ...

[A Gloom]

• t took me 6 months to realise that a "blank" ContentType is actually "text/vnd.tiddlywiki" (yes?). BTW, WHY can it be BLANK? 

I believe not type set defaults to text/vnd.tiddlywiki but in my building the Tiddler Explorer, using type[] brings up some tiddlers with no type set that don't show as x-tiddler or text/vnd.tiddlywiki.  In More tab> Types, no type set ususally shows under x-tiddler while text/vnd.tiddlywiki is excluded from the list there.  Using type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki] in Advanced search> Filter brings up only tiddlers that actually have text/vnd.tiddlywiki set as a type.  I think there's some extra background filtering when TW determines what a tiddler type is when its not set, x-tiddlers for type not set has widgets and such and not just plain text.

 

** note: using type[typename] should only display a type field with value "typename" and not see type fields not set

• It took me 9 months to realise that I could mix HTML code with WikiText. For a long time I was under the illusion that if I used HTML tags I must use ContentType "text/html".

Exact opposite here-- being a web page author (old school with Notepad), I mixed html with wikitext without setting txt/html from the get go and was thinking I was doing it wrong

[@TiddlyTweeter]

A Gloom wrote:

• TT: took me 6 months to realise that a "blank" ContentType is actually "text/vnd.tiddlywiki" (yes?). BTW, WHY can it be BLANK? 

I believe not type set defaults to text/vnd.tiddlywiki but in my building the Tiddler Explorer, using type[] brings up some tiddlers with no type set that don't show as x-tiddler or text/vnd.tiddlywiki.  In More tab> Types, no type set ususally shows under x-tiddler while text/vnd.tiddlywiki is excluded from the list there.  Using type[text/vnd.tiddlywiki] in Advanced search> Filter brings up only tiddlers that actually have text/vnd.tiddlywiki set as a type.  I think there's some extra background filtering when TW determines what a tiddler type is when its not set, x-tiddlers for type not set has widgets and such and not just plain text.

 

** note: using type[typename] should only display a type field with value "typename" and not see type fields not set

Not fully clear what you mean. Are you saying that a BLANK "Type" field could be an unpredictable format? 

• It took me 9 months to realise that I could mix HTML code with WikiText. For a long time I was under the illusion that if I used HTML tags I must use ContentType "text/html".

Exact opposite here-- being a web page author (old school with Notepad), I mixed html with wikitext without setting txt/html from the get go and was thinking I was doing it wrong

It is fascinating. 

Heft of it is maybe the docs are assuming something? I am not sure IF I am a bad reader or, actually, they implicitly assume something that a #newbie needs to explicitly know or not.

Best wishes

TT 

[PMario]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:34:16 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

 

Heft of it is maybe the docs are assuming something? I am not sure IF I am a bad reader or, actually, they implicitly assume something that a #newbie needs to explicitly know or not.

See the WikiText docs. HTML in Wikitext. The first line.

but

Mixing html and wikitext should only be done, if there is no other way. So I see no problem for new users. They shouldn't do it anyway!

-m

[PMario]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 9:26:07 AM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Before I completely lose "Beginners Mind" I thought to comment that ...

• It took me 6 months to realise that a "blank" ContentType is actually "text/vnd.tiddlywiki" (yes?). BTW, WHY can it be BLANK? 

It can be blank, because TW uses sensible defaults for "missing" parameters. The default type for every tiddler is text/vnd.tiddlywiki.

That's it.

from TW-docs

• The type selector - Use this when a tiddler needs to be displayed in a special way, such as an image. See ContentType for a list of the options. The default is text/vnd.tiddlywiki, which means the tiddler contains WikiText

It doesn't explicitly state, that "empty" means default, but it talks about the default.

have fun!

mario

[@TiddlyTweeter]

PMario wrote:

@TiddlyTweeter wrote:

• It took me 6 months to realise that a "blank" ContentType is actually "text/vnd.tiddlywiki" (yes?). BTW, WHY can it be BLANK? 

It can be blank, because TW uses sensible defaults for "missing" parameters. The default type for every tiddler is text/vnd.tiddlywiki.

That's it.

from TW-docs

I have NO problem with that. 

I have a problem that a NEW user would get NO SIGNAL that THAT IS IT. 

How would they know?

Best wishes

TT

[TonyM]

TT & Mario,

TT

I see how this could confuse someone, however the reason it was not stated is I believe because "wikitext is what tiddlywiki is", there is not harm however making it explicit. A vast majority of new users or casual users of someone elses wiki may never need to know this.

Mario,

Some new users know HTML and some do not. So for some HTML is the easy way to start.

Mixing html and wikitext should only be done, if there is no other way. So I see no problem for new users. They shouldn't do it anyway!

Whilst this may be good advice for new users I do not think it good advice in the long run. I would like to see us maintain the maximum compatibility with html because it is native to the browser, we can source a lot of content in html and it is a full and sophisticated set of possibilities tiddlywiki is in a position to leverage, just as we do with CSS. 

I would love to see a set of primitives (Macros, Widgets and Wikitext) that can replace javascript as used in current basic HTML so that the difference was minimised. By primitives I mean not needing to create somewhat bespoke widgets to provide access a html function but methods or widget that may assist in providing more access to any html function.

I personally use html tables rather than wikitext for large, complex and nested tables because it is far more extensible, of course I use widgets within it.

It is tiddlywikis use of global standards that makes it so powerful. 

As my nasient understanding grows I wonder why we could not allow a richer use of the HTML DOM independently from the tiddlywiki one, a kind of sandboxed DOM knowing full well it stands to the side of tiddlywikis DOM. An example may be importing a HTML form with the ability to submit it in a way that tiddlywiki can build a tiddler populated by the form. This would be a rapid way to build tiddlywiki solutions from extensive HTML resources.

Increasing tiddlywikis integration with html, from a designers view point rather than a developers view point, increases the ability for tiddlywiki to interact with the rest of the internet, or the "world" for that matter.

Regards

Tony