Using TiddlyFox into the future

[Daniel Fjerstad]

Hi all,

I've been lurking around these pages for a while. Today I've read a few posts where people are discussing what to do after Firefox discontinues XUL extensions. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on using, so I thought I'd share.

Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now. When Firefox switches over to WebExtensions, it's my understanding that Pale Moon will be the ONLY browser left on the market with true extensibility; Other psuedo-forks (Waterfox, Cyberfox, etc) aren't true forks and they won't be able to fully diverge from Firefox's upstream, due to lack of skills or resources (IMHO).

Pale Moon still works perfectly with many, many Firefox add-ons and will continue to do so. This includes TiddlyFox!

I've used the Moon Tester extension to install TiddlyFox 2.0.1 on multiple computers, both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly and I don't see any reason why it won't continue to work perfectly.

I think TiddlyWiki maintainers should at least *mention* the fact that one can continue to use TiddlyFox+Pale Moon with no problems for the foreseeable future.

In any case, I hope this helps someone!

[Mark S.]

Actually, I'm not sure the maintainers (really Jeremy) have mentioned solutions at all except that Jeremy likes the Beaker Browser. Unfortunately, that only applies to Mac, which is less than half the desktop platforms. But there's certainly been lot's of discussion on this forum. I imagine at some point there will be a posting of all working solutions on TiddlyWiki.com, but technically the changes to FF haven't occurred yet.

I used Palemoon for awhile.  The main thing in terms of TW is that sometimes the CSS would break down and sometimes I would get the Red Screen of Embarrassment while the same TW would work fine in Chrome or Firefox. Maybe I'll revisit and see how it's doing.

In the mean time, the default save mechanism continues to work and probably will as long as browsers allow downloads.

Mark

[Arlen Beiler]

That's because there are no other solutions that the community knows of. But it's people like you mentioning stuff here that brings it to everyone's attention. I did not know about this and will definitely have to check it out, even though I've used chrome since it started.

There are a couple possibilities which would involve a combination of browser extension and native windows application, but they are not very well researched, especially from a security perspective. 

This solution would work in all browsers, but would require quite a bit of research, at least for me, so I am not planning on exploring that since I already have TiddlyServer and it is easier for me to develop further if I focus on one project.

TiddlyServer is built for this specific reason as well. Because I wanted something to open TiddlyWiki folders and files both and keep everything organized. And because I just love how light NodeJS is on Windows.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Daniel

The issue with Pale Moon is not Pale Moon its about what "works for many". Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.

TiddlyServer seems pretty damn good for survival.

And the the fact is you can save several ways...

- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (looks near universal and proven)

- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).

- TiddlyDesktop (needs updating) [added tx to post by Eneko]

- TiddlyChrome extension (??may cease to work spring next year??) [added tx to post by Arlen]

- Beaker Browser (experimental, Mac only at the moment)

- Default Saver Tricks (Thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)

- Noteself (a different approach that uses browser storage, not a TW file, & will continue to work in FF)

- Other methods

That said. I'd like to point to, as I just did in another thread, that the reasons for using TW in a FF system are great. As much to do with everything else than TW per se. 

One does not use a browser to just run one type of web-page. FF XUL supported many types of extension and I think part of the issue even here in this group is mourning the demise of that too???

IMO, all that said, in the first instance, I still maintain FF ESR is the Best Bet now if you need TW saving or file-saving FF extensions. It will work till spring next year.

In the interim many things may happen. After that I may look at Pale Moon if I need continuity with my many FF add-ons that may have permanently failed to see if it could be viable.

Best wishes
Josiah

Daniel Fjerstad wrote:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the solution I plan on using, so I thought I'd share.

Pale Moon is a fork of Firefox -- not just a shallow fork, but a true fork that hasn't shared the same code-base as Firefox for years now...

[RichardWilliamSmith]

In my opinion it's something of a folly to mourn the obsolescence of software. Tempus fugit. Best to just rip off the band aid, download the developer edition of Firefox which is already at 57, and never look back. It's a much better browser and stands a real chance of clawing back market share from Google with average users.

If you think about it, it's probably not a great idea for your browser to be able to save things to your disks silently in the background, which is what Tiddlyfox was doing, after all. Running a server that specifically has permission to save things to disk is the right solution, in my opinion, as boring as that may be.

Beaker is experimental, Noteself is quite complicated, the download saver has no auto-saving (any other problems are secondary, as you'll know if you've ever lost work that you didn't save). Tiddlyserver or possibly Webdav will be the right answer for most people, I think.

Regards,

Richard

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:47:58 PM UTC+11, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Ciao Daniel

The issue with Pale Moon is not Pale Moon its about what "works for many". Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.

TiddlyServer seems pretty damn good for survival.

And the the fact is you can save several ways...

- Beaker Browser (Mac only at the moment)

- Default Saver Tricks (Thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)

- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (looks near universal and proven)

- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).

[Eneko Gotzon]

Hi wonderful coders, and excuse this kind of questions…

​About the falling of TiddlyFox, TiddlyDesktop is not a good choice​?

Don't worry answering the question if it's a trivial one.

​Thank you.

--

Eneko Gotzon Ares

Izan, egon, egin

Donostia – EH, Baskonia, NA Oso

Tf 

(+34) 943 273 431 - (+34) 639 626 858

——————————————————

Mezu hau eta berari atxikitako agiri oro isilpeko dira eta soilik hartzaileari zuzentzen zaizkie. Mezu hau hutsegitez jasoz gero berau ezabatzea eskatzen da eta igorleari horren berri ematea eskertuko litzake. Baimen agerikorik gabe debekatuta dago mezu honen edota bere edukinen edozein erabilera edo hedatzea, bai osoki zein zatiz. 

Mezu elektronikoak andea daitezke; mezu hau andeaturik, aldaturik edota aizun balego Eneko Gotzon Aresek edota bere ordezkariek uko egiten diote edonolako ardurei.

[Mark S.]

Different perspective. I don't like auto-save and have it turned off in most situations. I find I'm as likely to lose work from an auto-save that saves information that was in a transitional or interim state. I prefer to be in charge of when the data gets saved. It would be really nice if TW had a "save" key stroke for the save action, though.

For some of us, you'll need to explain how FF 57 is better. It was the extensions that gave it unique abilities beyond that of Chrome. Now it's just toss a dice and pick which browser you have.

Mark

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Eneko

GOOD question.

Recently Jeremy Ruston said he will update Tiddly Desktop. At the moment it can fail if you use recent CSS as its CSS library is out of date.

I should have probably added to that list (with the caveat: needs updating).

Best wishes
Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao RichardWilliamSmith ...

He wrote ...

... it's something of a folly to mourn the obsolescence of software. Tempus fugit.

Let's not get too hastus terminatus before its time.

The point I was making is a valid one, I think: I use TW in a browser WITH other extensions. TW is NOT in isolation. It's simply a fact that FF developed an extremely good extensions API that WebExtensions is a hollow shadow of. Having to CLOSE DOWN FIREFOX extensions is something I do NOT want to have to do. It will cause me a lot of work finding another way. And, as of yet, I can't see ANY viable justification on limiting file saving for those extensions other than some weird ideology that has taken hold beyond reason.

Your idea FF 57 is the Bees Knees is perhaps correct in terms of temporary performance improvements. The outcome, as far as I can see, is it will steal a few people from Chrome (as it imitates it) whilst throwing its uniqueness out the window.

Lets discuss the usage figures next March.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Rob Hoelz]

I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from - I think Mozilla realized just how dangerous it is for extensions from third party developers to have unfettered access to various OS services such as files, especially in this day and age.  I think the transition to Web Extensions could perhaps be handled better, but I understand their motivations.

That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it looks like the downloads API could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.  It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.

-Rob

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Rob

I do understand the concern. But it was pretty much a concern without proven foundation.

I NEVER, in years, had any problem. AND there is NOTHING I have ever seen that indicates the FF extension system was seriously abused.

It seems to me that legitimate paranoia got mixed up with "vaguely possible sometime hack". IMO there is a larger story going on beyond basic web security about "Memes Of Modern Thought" that posit threats where they don't, pragmatically, function.

Anyway, its a done deal. AND the issue is WebExtensions at the moment, are no way capable of replacing the previous saving system.

With TW that's an issue, but not fatal, with many other extensions it is death.

Best wishes
Josiah

[codacoder...@outlook.com]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-5, Rob Hoelz wrote:

I can see where RichardWilliamSmith is coming from -

Me, too.  The way they handled it was indeed poor.  For example, they could have made an exception and made FF56 an ESR release but (as yet) not so.  FF52 is the last ESR with regular addons support.

 

That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it looks like the downloads API could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.  It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.

You can change the location of downloads in the preferences (Options) settings.  If you want to have the best of both worlds, you can set up different profiles for TW files (I do my TW work that way).  Having tested this for a few weeks, I quite like it.  I no longer see the loss of tiddlyfox as an issue.

[Lost Admin]

It's not "vaguely possible sometime hack". it's definitely possible sometimes hack. Although to my knowledge the sometimes has turned out to be extremely rare. So, you do have a point.

By modern web browser security standards, the old method is far too open with the potential for abuse. Since I suspect Mozilla (they still manage Firefox don't they) doesn't want to have to police the add-in library as heavily as Apple polices the IOS marketplace, they decided to remove the openness of the way extensions work.

The threat is simple, although pretty much unrealized. The architecture of XUL pretty much gave the extension developers full access to your computer. Which means you have to trust them to write good code. The folks that manage the Firefox add-ons website will get a lot of flack if they let an extension in that turns out to be a back door into consumer desktops.

Instead of trying to wrap a sandbox around the XUL system, they decided to replace it with a more modern and limited framework.

Note: I am not supporting the decision, only providing a bit more context behind why they might have decided to go this way. I actually like the openness of the old way. I, like many of you, thought it was a strength even if it did require more diligence on my part.

[Rob Hoelz]

I think in part it was a response to Firefox's perceived weakness in terms of security (I remember that Firefox was considered "too easy" in Pwn2Own 2016), and if I remember correctly, there was a pretty bad data exfiltration zero day two years ago that was in pdf.js - which was a bundled XUL extension.  Considering how much personal data is embedded within browsers (passwords, and probably payment info with upcoming web payments), I think Mozilla is taking a proactive approach.

But, like you said, the horses have left the barn on this issue.

[Riz]

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 22:34:35 UTC+5:30, Rob Hoelz wrote:

That being said, I was looking through the Web Extensions APIs, and it looks like the downloads API could potentially be used to implement some of TiddlyFox's functionality.  It means you would need to keep your tiddlywiki.html file under your Downloads folder, but it's better than nothing.

-Rob

This is what I was thinking. Have anyone tried to workaround the limitation of Downloads folder? As in, via symlinks? What I meant to say is, if I decide to keep all my TWs in a single folder, and that folder has a symlink in Downloads folder, can Tiddlyfox continue saving?. It would be a hack, but it would be better than nothing.

I have switched my Knowledgebase to TiddlyServer already. However, with all its benefits, it has some comfortable features missing. For example with tiddlyfox I can just download an empty wiki, open it and test something, save it and when done with its use, discard it without a second thought. With TiddlyServer, I have to ensure I add it to the settings files, restart the server and finally remove it when done, or restrict myself to the same path. I hope Arlen would someday look into a feature by which all files in a particular folder is loaded as standalone TW, so we can put the empty file in that folder. Until then, I would miss TFox.



 

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Lost Admin

I think you hit a point with this of lasting relevance.

Lost Admin wrote:
... I, like many of you, thought it was a strength even if it did require more diligence on my part...

Users do get aware--so long as they are not cosseted--they need take responsibility.

The problem for TW is we are about to LOSE A PLATFORM. That is much worse than learning basic net caution IMO.

Best wishes
Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Rob

Indeed ...

Rob Hoelz wrote:
... the horses have left the barn on this issue.

... so in some ways there is nothing to say as its a fiat-acompli. Like it or lump it.

However, for Tiddlywiki, I think it has some bearing.

Currently our model of the basic thing is TW "a web-page you can save". That is looking under strain.

HOW do you guide a newbie now? I think its THAT issue that concerns  me most.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Rob Hoelz]

HOW do you guide a newbie now? I think its THAT issue that concerns  me most.

Fair point - I don't have an answer for that.  Either way, it is, sadly, the end of an era.

[Arlen Beiler]

First of all, TiddlyChrome still works. 

https://github.com/Arlen22/tiddly-chrome-app

And are we at Firefox 57 yet in mainstream? I don't think we are yet. 

So we are still getting there, basically because it hasn't actually happened yet. We're getting close and we're getting ready. 

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Rob Hoelz <rdh...@gmail.com> wrote:

HOW do you guide a newbie now? I think its THAT issue that concerns  me most.

Fair point - I don't have an answer for that.  Either way, it is, sadly, the end of an era.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d7715b3a-6c62-4140-8d6e-307d6bf18b46%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TonyM]

Folks,

I think this is an example of the tail wagging the dog, in this case security or even only the "perception of security". These changes undermine the meaning of the universal client - the browser and don't just handicap tiddlywiki users. Any use of HTML and other webpage services locally are at risk.

To disenfranchise a large number of plugins and their developers is also a risky step.

I assert the problem is also one of creativity. There is no reason why a lock and key method could not be used to permit or white list files or folders for update access, this could also require separate and independent applications and settings on the client OS or plugins not unlike TiddlyFox which are required to be installed before such assess (with restrictions) is possible. This can even use local administrative to secure and control such access.

My Prediction is FireFox will be damaged by this and rather than progressing they will be forced to back-peddle, and it will take a few generations before appropriate solutions are made available.

Argggh
Tony

[TonyM]

Riz,

I am using FireFox ESR (Without invoking tiddlyFox on my test wiki) but Will try the latest FF shortly.

On Windows 10 I just used the MKLINK in a Run as Administrator command Prompt to create a symbolic link where a file stored in the download directory has a symbolic link in another folder. The TW5 can be opened from either location and using the save (download) mechanism, with save set as default for this filetype, you have to indicate the save filename (Folder if you have the setting to allow folder selection) but the default is usually enough, you then have to respond to the overwrite file prompt.

Then reloading from either file location the download and the link, will show the updated tiddlywiki.

If you have a fixed download folder this should allow you to access your tiddlywiki in any folder but always save/via download to the download folder (The filename is retained)

As I have posted previously an "always running batch file" can be used to monitor the download folder and copy updated files to another location if required. You have now made me think what if the batch-file instead updated the symlink? I am thinking each time you save an active batch file or windows service renames the saved file as a new version, updates the symlink on the "symbolic file" (outside the downloads folder) to the new version filename but retaining the original name. Next time you save all you have to do is select save in the dialogue, there is no overwrite prompt as you have removed the original file.

I have given the above scenario a test and it works well (manually) Its key advantage is

• you can maintain previous versions and simplify the download process.

 Its disadvantages are

• Autosave is not built in or would cause interruptions to your work flow,
• We need to develop an easy to use OS Specific Tool

The truth is if you just allow FF to select download folders, create a sub-folder in downloads called  tiddlywiki and save all your wikis there using symlinks is not much different.

Food for thought
Tony

[Mark S.]

As I keep trying to point out, you don't need a continuously running *anything*. All you need is a start up script that copies your latest file in the download directory to your working directory, and then launches the TW file in the browser. For the rest of your session it's just like working under TiddlyFox, except that auto-save isn't available.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 5:20:47 PM UTC-7, TonyM wrote:

Riz,

[RichardWilliamSmith]

"an "always running batch file" can be used to monitor the download folder and copy updated files to another location if required. You have now made me think what if the batch-file instead updated the symlink? I am thinking each time you save an active batch file or windows service renames the saved file as a new version, updates the symlink on the "symbolic file" (outside the downloads folder) to the new version filename but retaining the original name. Next time you save all you have to do is select save in the dialogue, there is no overwrite prompt as you have removed the original file."

If you use Tiddlyserver there are only two real differences to what you're used to:

1. You have to start Tiddlyserver

2. You navigate to, and open, your wikis using the browser instead of your file-system finder/explorer

Apart from that, it's a complete replacement and offers other features besides, such as backups.

I think you're in danger of seriously over-complicating things in order to avoid the second step. Is there a *really* compelling reason to do so?

Regards,

Richard

[TonyM]

Mark,

Mark, Please explain further the workflow you are talking about.

When you save the file (because you had a lot of changes) how do you avoid the Download Folder select, overwrite step given it appears this will be the only default mechanism.

Have you done a test run to see it working?

Tony

[TonyM]

Richard,

Sadly Firefox just terminated loosing the response I had already written for you, I have noticed this happen after updates to V56 and is really sad when you have not saved your tiddlywiki, one thing in favor of autosave inside browsers that is for sure.

I am all for TiddlyServer, the last time I used it it was not so strait forward, especially for new users, I will revisit it soon,

If you use the approach I am considering you only have to;
1. Start the tool running (In Startup)
2. Configure the location where you want the tiddlywiki to live outside the downloads folder

The browser and file manager access should remain the same. Backups and cloning can be supported and people can use there file manger

I must suggest that I do not think this over complicating at all, Firstly here I was responding to the Question/Suggestion by Riz.
Even without the "centennial" process running this is a workable solution for some. Riz has identified an OS level way to deal with enforced downloads.

Perhaps you cant visualize what I have, including the ability to pack such a tool inside TiddlyWiki itself. It need not be complicated as you observe. The Possibilities have being only just being identified.

I am always open to constructive criticism, however with respect please be careful not to "Dis" a process of exploration, its at the end of our journey when we can determine the best solutions, to deal with the save problem.

Yours Sincerely
Tony

[Mark S.]

On my Firefox I have it set to download automatically (not ask) and to not overwrite existing files. So I get long names like

bible(2).html
bible(3).html
bible(4).html
etc.

I have a launch script for each TW file type that looks like this:

launch_tw_bible.bat

powershell -executionpolicy bypass -File .\launch_tw.ps1 -stem "bible" -dir d:\data\apps\TW_Ant

It calls a 5 line batch file like this:

launch_tw.ps1

param([string]$stem="foo", [string]$dir="")
$copyme = ls $stem*.html | sort LastWriteTime | select -last 1
$copyme = $copyme.FullName
Copy-Item $copyme -Destination $dir\$stem.html
Invoke-Item $dir\$stem.html

It took me about a day or less to cook this up -- I've never used Powershell before.

Yes, I used this for about a week. It seemed to be reliable. As a side effect, you get a free backup every time you save (just like you used to with TWC). For the moment I'm back with TF, but I'm glad to know this is available when the change finally comes.

This is on Windows of course. But I understand that Mac has it's own batch file language so I'm sure someone versed in it could whip up something equally simple. Linux famously has batch language ability plus modern installations come with Python. So I'm sure it's possible to come up with a Linux version -- if there was any interest rather than the collective yawn.

Mark

[Daniel Fjerstad]

Some interesting replies in this thread. Thanks for the input, everyone.

TiddlyTweeter:

>Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.

Perception or not, it's an incredibly secure browser that faithfully implements open web standards. What you present is a classic chicken and egg problem: Pale Moon won't get widespread use until it's perceived as being a valid option, and it won't be perceived as a valid option until it has widespread use.

Eneko Gotzon:

>​About the falling of TiddlyFox, TiddlyDesktop is not a good choice​?

Personally, I don't like TiddlyDesktop because I don't want to have to have a separate application purely for TiddlyWiki. While it's a valid option in a pinch, when I think about optimizing my workflow, that doesn't include a separate web browser just for TiddlyWiki. For that reason it's not a 'real' option in my mind.

Mark S.:

>I prefer to be in charge of when the data gets saved. It would be really nice if TW had a "save" key stroke for the save action, though.

I have found a workaround for the fact that there isn't a "Save Tiddlywiki" shortcut key: I modified $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js to implement an "accesskey" option.  The "accesskey" property is something implemented by every browser for buttons, and is usually triggered by pressing Ctrl-Shift or Alt-Shift and the access key. I can show you my implementation if you would like.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Arlen

Arlen Beiler wrote:First of all, TiddlyChrome still works. 

https://github.com/Arlen22/tiddly-chrome-app

My apologies Arlen for not including TiddlyChrome on the list I suggested earlier. I revised it as below.

Do you know when it will stop working? My understanding is Chrome will retire the older style app method TiddlyChrome uses sometime early-ish next year? But I can't find an exact date anywhere.

-----------------------

You can save TiddlyWiki many ways using ...

- TiddlyServer by Arlen & Mac package by RichardWS (looks near universal and proven)

- Local WebDav (still emerging, but looking workable).

- TiddlyDesktop (needs updating) [added tx to post by Eneko]

- TiddlyChrome extension (??may cease to work spring next year??) [added tx to post by Arlen]

- Beaker Browser (experimental, Mac only at the moment)

- Pale Moon Browser (??needs wider testing??) [added tx to post by Daniel Fjerstad]

- Default Saver Tricks (thanks to Mark S., more likely to follow)

[Mark S.]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 8:50:39 AM UTC-7, Daniel Fjerstad wrote:

Mark S.:

>I prefer to be in charge of when the data gets saved. It would be really nice if TW had a "save" key stroke for the save action, though.

I have found a workaround for the fact that there isn't a "Save Tiddlywiki" shortcut key: I modified $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js to implement an "accesskey" option.  The "accesskey" property is something implemented by every browser for buttons, and is usually triggered by pressing Ctrl-Shift or Alt-Shift and the access key. I can show you my implementation if you would like.

Oh yes! Please share! It sounds interesting.

Mark

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Daniel

TiddlyTweeter wrote:
Pale Moon is largely perceived as a peripheral experiment.

Daniel Fjerstad wrote:

Perception or not, it's an incredibly secure browser that faithfully implements open web standards. What you present is a classic chicken and egg problem: Pale Moon won't get widespread use until it's perceived as being a valid option, and it won't be perceived as a valid option until it has widespread use.

Agreed. As I mentioned, in both this and another thread, part of the issue with TW in FF is NOT just TiddlyWiki. It is other extensions too. I don't use FF just for TW. I use it as a universal client. So a lot of the issue is around having TW work AND other extensions into the future. Pale Moon could answer that--maybe. I seriously suspect narrow focus on TW in discussion of saving, as if it were the ONLY thing you did in Firefox, is somewhat over-simplifying the real problems for many users of FF.

Right now I will stick with FF ESR--as it works--and will till spring next.

Come the end of ESR I may look more closely at Pale Moon. I did try it before and have to say it was more problematic than standard FF of the time.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Daniel Fjerstad]

Sure thing. I simply added the logic to implement the accesskey attribute into the $:/core/modules/widgets/button.js tiddler. You can see a copy of that here: https://pastebin.com/0rEA3aYZ

Then to use it, all you do is modify the (save) button widget call to include the accesskey attribute with a value corresponding to the key you wish to be associated with that button. In my case I added accesskey="s" to the $button widget call in $:/core/ui/Buttons/save-wiki tiddler. You can see a copy of that here: https://pastebin.com/wbut1Ztz

Then you press Alt+Shift+S or Alt+S depending on your browser. See here: https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_global_accesskey.asp

PS, I found the idea behind this solution on this forum, I think it might have been Eric Schulman's idea originally.


 

[Riz]

That is a neat trick. My previous unsuccessful attempts in this line included adding access keys to specific tiddlers to navigate to those tiddlers easily. Unfortunately that did not work out. Again, neat trick.

[DavidRowe Wtl]

I have downloaded and installed Pale Moon latest version 27.5.0 64bit Windows.  I then installed TiddlyFox extension for Firefox Version 1.0alpha18.1-signed.1-signed Released September 14, 2013 17.5 KiB Works with Firefox for Android 11.0 - 51.*, Firefox 3.5 - 51.* https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tiddlyfox/versions/.  The tiddler menu 'save changes' link works exactly like it used to, before the cat version, great.  FF V57 problem solved.

Note the tiddly cat V2 product does not install due to reported use of Jetpack/SDK. Pale Moon offers an unsupported forced install but I had no reason to try that.  I will if some one can tell me what advantage I would have in using it.

I actually feel happier about having a browser just for maintaining my TiddlyWiki's.

I have spent two days generally using Pale Moon and installed other extensions (e.g. ScrapBook) which I can't live without and it works extremely well (not a single failure or rendering issue I noticed).  

'AdBlock Latitude' (the result of some spat I don't understand the details of between the developers - https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6612) worked well too, so I feel quite well set up and sorted.

[Daniel Fjerstad]

DavidRowe, that's awesome! I'm glad it's working out for you.

One thing I might suggest is to try out the Moon Tester extension. It will allow you to install SDK extensions. Many of them work out of the box, including TiddlyFox 2.0.1. You can find that extension here: https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/moon-tester-tool/

[Desus]

I recently discovered that I would also have to open Fireftp not by using the new version of Firefox. Personally I've been a long time disappointed with it because it tonornou a heavy browser and full of error, a true patchwork. Looking for an alternative I met "Waterfox" which is indicated by the Fireftp developer and who installed TiddlyFox perfectly from the addons.mozilla.org
Sorry for Firefox, our relationship was good while it lasted and clearly the tendency is to become the least useful and interesting of browsers and as we have seen in the past, everything indicates that it is intentional and premeditated by another great company.

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
http://fireftp.net/