[tw] Worrying about TW

[Mark S.]

Something's been bothering me. Perhaps someone with a grasp of
Javascript/HTML5/Firefox can offer some solace.

At its core, TW works by violating a prime rule of Javascript: It
saves itself (and other material) to a local machine. Javascript isn't
supposed to have this ability, but FireFox and IE have some extra,
optional abilities that can be exposed by clever programmers. Opera
and Safari and ? do their saving via a java plugin ... or at least try
to.

Recently, Microsoft has tried to button up its software. The only way
to enable saving with TW on recent versions of XP - ? is to
deliberately undo the security that MS has put into place. At least in
my case, I had to load a registry setting to even make this possible.
This kind of manipulation won't be possible in a corporate
environment.

It appears that Opera may have hit some wall with using the Java jar
file.

Meanwhile Firefox seems to be becoming more like MS every day -- now
causing plugins to stop working for no other reason then that the
version number in the plugin doesn't match the version of FF -- a
somewhat draconian approach, IMHO.

So I'm wondering if we're going to wake up one day to a new version of
FF that no longer allows TW to save. Nor IE. Nor alternatives via
java? Will the new HTML5 basis guarantee that TW will always have a
legitimate way to save itself? Or, will there always be some back door
for saving TW files? Is there some browser that we can count on to
always run TW?

Thanks for listening,
Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.

[Joe Hewitt]

Mark,

You are right to be worrying about TW! I'm not as technically-astute
as you seem to be, but I do work with TW all day long as my daily work
diary and todo list. It's the first page that I open up in the
morning and the last one closed at night. Recently, I have had some
problems saving tiddlywiki data.

My desktop computer was upgraded to Windows 7 and, TW immediately
stopped saving data. I used the Firefox browser and had few problems,
but with the OS change we seemed to have a problem.

First, I put the jar file in the same directory as my tiddlywiki; no
save. Second, I tried using Explorer; still no saved data. Opera
saved a few times with the jar file in place, but I just don't like
the interface and the constant suggestions toI upgrade bothered me.
Finally, I settled with SeaMonkey on Win7; it saves my updates
without the blasted TiddlySaver.jar. I'm not all that fond of
SeaMonkey in Linux, but in Win7 it looks nice and saves my tiddlywiki
updates.

I do miss some of the Firefox plugins and themes, but, all in all,
SeaMonkey is quicker to load has the most of the features Firefox
users are used. to. If you upgrade to Win7, you might want to check
out SeaMonkey.

BTW, I agree that Firefox seems as bloated and slow as IE.

Good luck,
Joe

[Rafael Carrasco]

My desktop computer was upgraded to Windows 7 and, TW immediately
stopped saving data. I used the Firefox browser and had few problems,
but with the OS change we seemed to have a problem.

I use Win7 / Firefox too, and TiddlyWiki worked fine since day 1. I've never used that TiddlySaver.jar of yours.... I think that I saw something about it, but it was not meant for Firefox in the first place. This jar would correct some save issue with other navigators, not Firefox - or am I wrong? My memory is horrible :-(

Now, I believe that it would be really cool if TW became implemented using only HTML 5, no Javascript. I saw somewhere a online drawing app, which is totally HTML 5 based.

I love Firefox, but have to agree that it's really heavy. Maybe Firefox 4 will alleviate this?

And about the save feature, maybe someone could write a plugin that address this. I believe it would not be that hard - just put on a white list every page that could save itself via Javascript. Maybe it's already there


Best regards

--
Rafael da Silva Carrasco
Mestrando em Ciência da Computação
Universidade Federal de Viçosa

http://br.linkedin.com/in/rafaelcarrascoufv

[Mike]

Joe,
I use portablefirefox 3.5 ( http://www.portableapps.com ) on win2k,
winXP, winV, and win7 with no problems - the only thing I did out of
the box was use firefoxprivledges plugin (tw) to remove all of the
warning messages. . .

Regretfully FF is growing in bloat, but still better than IE, and
better plugin support than chrome.

I imagine if all of the major browers close off TW save capabilities,
one of the great dev's will find a work around. . . And HTML5 is in
the works which should be more future proof (tw5)

Mike

[Mark S.]

Hi Mike et al,

> I use portablefirefox 3.5 (http://www.portableapps.com) on win2k,

Too bad they don't have a portable web-server app. That might future-
proof TW. Of course, if you're going to run a web-server, then you
could pick just about any Wiki.

> Regretfully FF is growing in bloat, but still better
> than IE, and better plugin support than chrome.

I'm not sure what everyone means by bloat. Any two pieces of software,
given the same specifications, will eventually converge upon a similar
size and usage. As the user base grows, users demand more and more
"must-have" features. Unfortunately one man's "must-have" is another
man's "what's that?" feature.

> I imagine if all of the major browers close off TW
> save capabilities, one of the great dev's will find a
> work around. . . And HTML5 is in the works which
> should be more future proof (tw5)

Can we be sure of that? And is there any reason to believe that HTML5
will be more future-proof, given that javascript will still be a
client-side solution with client-side restrictions?

Mark

[Mike]

they do have a portable webserver !
based on apache, I haven't tried it though . . .

One thing I have noticed with a portable browser, once it is setup, no
real need to upgrade, unless you want a new feature or are concerned
about a security flaw. . .

My portable ff launches from a .bat, loading tw (indifferent to the
usb drive letter)

almost like a self contained app, but not

Mike

[Mike]

portable web server is under xampp, a search for apache returns some
additional results also.

Mike

On Apr 17, 2:43 pm, "Mark S." <throa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[FND]

> At its core, TW works by violating a prime rule of Javascript: It
> saves itself (and other material) to a local machine.

> [...]
> So I'm wondering if we're going to wake up one day to [browsers]
> that no longer [allow] TW to save. Nor alternatives via java?

While that possibility exists, it seems highly unlikely. Browser
vendors, while security-conscious, are very keen on not breaking
compatibility with existing websites or applications.
It's worth noting that TiddlyWiki will always be readable, so you will
not lose access to your data.

> Is there some browser that we can count on to always run TW?

Site-specific browsers like Prism, perhaps.

> Will the new HTML5 basis guarantee that TW will always have a
> legitimate way to save itself?

While HTML5 provides local storage, that is currently is limited to a
database within the respective user's individual browser - so it's not
very portable.
However, there are efforts to provide a sanctioned mechanism for
file-system access:
http://www.w3.org/News/2010.html#entry-8762

> Too bad they don't have a portable web-server app. That might
> future-proof TW.

Indeed, that would always remain an option.
TiddlyWeb already provides this - it's just that we don't have a
one-click install for Windows yet:
http://tiddlyweb.peermore.com/wiki/recipes/docs/tiddlers/Installing%20on%20Windows
We're hoping that someone with an interest in that particular OS will
contribute to simplify the experience (should not be hard at all).

> Now, I believe that it would be really cool if TW became implemented
> using only HTML 5, no Javascript. I saw somewhere a online drawing
> app, which is totally HTML 5 based.

HTML5 and JavaScript are not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite.
Anything highly dynamic or interactive - including canvas, which you
seem to be alluding to - is driven by JavaScript.


-- F.

[Rafael Carrasco]

Now, I believe that it would be really cool if TW became implemented
using only HTML 5, no Javascript. I saw somewhere a online drawing
app, which is totally HTML 5 based.

HTML5 and JavaScript are not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite.
Anything highly dynamic or interactive - including canvas, which you seem to be alluding to - is driven by JavaScript.

What I wanted to say is that it would be cool to use only HTML 5 because then TW would not need to rely on browser specific javascript engines, and the incompatibities that arise from it. Didn't wanted to say that they are exclusive...

The app that I was talking is http://mugtug.com/sketchpad/, but I looked into it's source and found a lot of javascripts, oops :-(

--
Rafael da Silva Carrasco
Mestrando em Ciência da Computação
Universidade Federal de Viçosa

http://br.linkedin.com/in/rafaelcarrascoufv

[Mark S.]

Hello FND,

On Apr 18, 12:57 am, FND <F...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > So I'm wondering if we're going to wake up one day
> > to [browsers] that no longer [allow] TW to save.
> > Nor alternatives via java?
>
> While that possibility exists, it seems highly
> unlikely. Browser vendors, while security-conscious,
> are very keen on not breaking compatibility with
> existing websites or applications. It's worth noting
> that TiddlyWiki will always be readable, so you will
> not lose access to your data.

Readability is nice, but that renders TW only suitable for kiosk use.
The browser vendors seem to already be shutting the gates. Its
possible that they can not guarantee security while allowing any sort
of script to touch the local hard drive. And nobody wants to be liable
for massive security breaches.

> While HTML5 provides local storage, that is currently
> is limited to a database within the respective user's
> individual browser - so it's not very portable.

That's what I suspected.

> > Too bad they don't have a portable web-server app.
> > That might future-proof TW.
>
> Indeed, that would always remain an option.
> TiddlyWeb already provides this - it's just that we
> don't have a

I haven't followed TiddlyWeb closely, but once you have a server
running, there don't seem to be as many compelling reasons to choose
TW over some other, industry standard product (e.g. MediaWiki).

The "lightweight" version of XAMPP weighs in at 100 megs space!

So far I haven't heard anything to suggest there is nothing to be
worried about. Like, "We'll always have technology X", or "HTML5 has a
save mechanism built in", or "Brand Z browser promises to always allow
saving".

Thanks,
Mark

[Anthony Muscio]

On this sustainability of TiddlyWiki, I would suggest that web 2.0 and all the interactive web sites and applications, including those that can run against local file systems will continue.

I would not be supprised with the increasing use of the browser as the universal client that many of todays installed desktop applications move into the browser. Why make a program that can only run on version x of OS y when in the browser it can run on any computer. Desktop Java Applications I use such as Freemind can be found in browser or server variations.

Google's Chrome OS is a good example of where the technology is migrating towards further integration between the browser and the Operating system. I would suggest this is movement in the same direction as tiddlywiki - not away from it.

Yes the relentless security patch process will always threaten browser upgrade success but restricting global access and providing tools to permit specific access to a user approved application/service is increasing. You can also get Read Only Browser Virtual machines or applications that refuse to accept changes, the only avenue left for anything other than trivial surfing is to write changes to files or servers/db's - both are possible with tiddlywiki (or it's variations).

The popularity of tiddlywiki and a range of other applications that demand file system access will all-ways provide any browser that accomodates them a marketing advantage.

I remember how people spoke of the imminent demise of Novel's Netware operating system for 15 years yet before this came close Netware had transmogrified into Novel's SUSE Linux the same would happen with tiddlywiki and it's ilk.

Regards Tony

TonyM

If you have not found an easy way to do it with TiddlyWiki, you have missed something.
www.tiddlywiki.com

[tony]

I was at an Apple Store today and loaded up tiddlywiki.com on the iPad
using mobile safari.
It was surprisingly fast to render along with the larger
tiddlytools.com.
Unfortunately like most of these closed mobile appliances, the
inability to tw save was disheartening.
The nice thing like FND said one's data is still accessible as HTML
can be read as text and great efforts like Eric's savetoclipboard and
export plugins ease the sting. My hope is more open efforts with
Meego, Android, etc will make strides to retain that nice full
tiddlywiki experience in future mobile clients.
Maybe the next Nokia N900 :-)
Another idea from the emacs community is mobileorg, an iPhone app
which interacts with org mode data.
Aside from jailbreaking and installing a portable server, I think this
would be a great opportunity for an enterprising app dev- basically an
app to sync against a tiddlywiki, tiddlyweb/ tiddlywebwiki store.
The future is open!

Best,
tony

[Eric Shulman]

> > existing websites or applications. It's worth noting
> > that TiddlyWiki will always be readable, so you will
> > not lose access to your data.
>
> Readability is nice, but that renders TW only suitable for kiosk use.

I think you may have misunderstood FND's response...


I believe that, rather than suggesting 'read-only' use (i.e. kiosk
mode), Fred was noting that, unlike other applications that encode
your data in a proprietary binary format, the *data* inside TiddlyWiki
is stored as "readable" plain text (with some standard URL-encoding of
special characters), so that it is relatively simple to move the data
to some other application if TW *does* stop working for your
particular platform.

Because it is text, there are numerous options available to you for
extracting the data and converting it for import into a new
application. For example, you can always manually copy/paste text
from the tiddler source into a new application. Of course, that
quickly can become tedious and is very prone to user error, so it is
clearly not the most effective method.

Fortunately, however, because the TW internal storage format is based
on well-formed HTML-syntax, it is relatively simple to write a text-
manipulation script that can automatically extract the tiddler
definitions (including title, text, tags, *and* all custom fields)
from the TW file (without needing to run TW), and convert them into a
format that can then be read and imported into the new app.

Thus, while TW *might* stop working with some browsers... your data
is *never* going to become inaccessible.

enjoy,
-e

[Mark S.]

Hello Anthony et al,

On Apr 18, 5:36 pm, Anthony Muscio <anthony.mus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would not be supprised with the increasing use of
> the browser as the universal client that many of
> todays installed desktop applications move into the
> browser. Why make a program that can only run on
> version x of OS y when in the browser it can run on
> any computer. Desktop Java Applications I use such as
> Freemind can be found in browser or server
> variations.

Just to emphasize what I mentioned before, javascript, unlike java,
was never, ever, meant to access the local hard drive. If there was
going to be any movement towards liberalizing javascript, then we
should see it in API changes. Currently there is no "file()",
"save()", "open()" etc. function as part of the javascript language.

Ironically, by forcing developers to use backdoor approaches, the
browser vendors are probably making things less secure. A back-door
approach is likely to be more vulnerable to some type of buffer
overrun exploit. By contrast, languages like perl incorporate
"tainting", wherein incoming data can not be used in certain tasks
(like evaluating scripts or opening files), until its been passed
through a verification routine.

> Google's Chrome OS is a good example of where the
> technology is migrating towards further integration
> between the browser and the Operating system. I would
> suggest this is movement in the same direction as
> tiddlywiki - not away from it.

But that's just AJAX -- no local data-saving. Local data-saving is
pretty important to have a viable, portable application.

Once again, TW is already shut-out on corporate systems requiring IE
and administrative rights due to MS tightening its security
environment. Sticking with old browsers only goes so far, because
eventually everyone, including the TW community, will want some new
feature that only comes with a new browser.

It would be comforting, for instance, if the Firefox community were to
announce an official API to file saving (not a back-door "component").
If that were to happen, eventually IE and other browsers would
incorporate similar technology in their offerings.

[Mike]

this may be off base, but has anyone created a ticket with Mozilla to
suggest an file save API?
may be worth while to do the same with Chrome. . . Just an idea -
maybe voicing a collective opinion with the browser developers, and
indentifying a need would go a long way - I am not sure if their is a
way to identify aproximately how many users or download stats from
tiddlywiki.com but this may be useful also.

Mike

[Anthony Muscio]

Maik,

Good idea. I am not a developer so I wont do that -

But;

I would think there was some value giving such a submission a little more meat - like you suggested possible users but also;

Fully Utilise Browser Technology for personal and offline, desktop use.
Support applications on a stick - USB integrating with the internet.
Support TiddlyWiki a true evolving web 2.0 application.

Noting that security remain paramount however the ability to nominate specific files that have these exceptional permissions will keep the exposure low.
The provision of a graphical interface to review exceptions may be helpful.

Google group statistics may also demonstrate the size of the community and our activity.

Regards Tony

TonyM

If you have not found an easy way to do it with TiddlyWiki, you have missed something.
www.tiddlywiki.com