[TW5] smallest possible tiddlywiki?

333 views
Skip to first unread message

RunningUtes

unread,
May 12, 2014, 12:42:36 AM5/12/14
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Just wondering if anyone had tried to strip out anything to make a TW5 as small as possible say for read only display of information.

Måns

unread,
May 12, 2014, 4:10:36 AM5/12/14
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Hi RunningUtes

Have you tried $./Controlpanel > Tools > Export > Download all tiddlers as static HTML?

If you download an empty TW it's 894k - Download a static empty TW and it's 31k. (No tiddlers at all).

If you download eg. the tiddlywiki.com TW it's 2174k as a static HTML it's 2840k ... (It's bigger than the original > maybe it's because it has external images embedded into the HTML?)

Cheers Måns Mårtensson

Jeremy Ruston

unread,
May 12, 2014, 7:37:26 AM5/12/14
to TiddlyWiki
Just wondering if anyone had tried to strip out anything to make a TW5 as small as possible say for read only display of information.

In fact there's very little of the TW core code that is exclusively concerned with editing. The editing functionality of TW is built out of the same basic building blocks as the rest of the UI; for example, the handling of input boxes in edit templates is reused for handling input boxes in search.

As Måns suggests, the best approach is to render the content to a static HTML file. It also gives you excellent browser compatibility.
 
If you download eg. the tiddlywiki.com TW it's 2174k as a static HTML it's 2840k ... (It's bigger than the original > maybe it's because it has external images embedded into the HTML?)

Indeed, the static HTML version currently has each instance of each image embedded as a separate base64 data URI. So things like the toolbar buttons end up taking a disproportional amount of space.

Of course, the example on tiddlywiki.com reuses the ordinary view templates for the static rendition; what's really needed is a separate set of more minimal templates that excludes the unneeded elements.

Best wishes

Jeremy
 

Cheers Måns Mårtensson

Den mandag den 12. maj 2014 06.42.36 UTC+2 skrev RunningUtes:
Just wondering if anyone had tried to strip out anything to make a TW5 as small as possible say for read only display of information.

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com

PMario

unread,
May 13, 2014, 5:01:15 AM5/13/14
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:42:36 AM UTC+2, RunningUtes wrote:
Just wondering if anyone had tried to strip out anything to make a TW5 as small as possible say for read only display of information.

Are you talking about a downloaded empty.html or  a downloaded version of tiddlywiki.com?

TW.com contains all translated interface languages. So your users may need only one or 2 of them.

As mentioned already, you can create

* as single file, that contains a static version of all tiddlers. No javascript ... should work with all browsers.
* many static files, that contain single tiddlers. No javascript ... should work with all browsers.

or

* if you want TW functionality (eg: search), you could compress the javascript source code, to get a smaller file size.

IMO at the moment it doesn't make sense to compress the core js code. ... I doubt it ever will.

reasons:

* A well designed server will send a compressed version over the wire, to the browser. So web traffic will be less, than the actual file size.
   * 621kByte sent 2100kByte file size  ... tiddlywiki.com.html
   * 187kByte sent 892kByte file size ... empty.html

* In my opinion, the advantage to have readable source code, outweights the win of less disk space.
* Many users include images into there TWs. So if you include one image with about 300kbyte, the "compressed javascript" file size advantage is gone.
* Harddisk space is cheap.
* Maintaining a compressed TW is not cheap.

just my 2 cents
-mario

leoperbo

unread,
Nov 16, 2022, 10:37:27 PM11/16/22
to TiddlyWiki
Just for the people landindg here searching for a "tiny" TiddlyWiki", there is FeatherWiki, described by Robbie Antenesse (creator) "to be just like TiddlyWiki, but with the smallest file size possible". It is 50 times smaller than an empty TiddlyWiki, and it's compatible with Tiddlyhost.

I made use of FeatherWiki to create an "eCard" named "TiddlyCard", that made distributed verification possible between Mastodon and a wiki published in Tiddlyhost.

leoperbo

unread,
Nov 17, 2022, 7:30:46 PM11/17/22
to TiddlyWiki
"hCard" no "eCard" .__.

Charlie Veniot

unread,
Nov 20, 2022, 11:46:09 AM11/20/22
to TiddlyWiki
Yeah, I use a FeatherWiki instance as my startup page when I turn on my Chromebook.

I use that to quickly look at my Google Calendar (in Agenda view) and use it as beefy bookmarks manager, quick note-taking, and reminders (like post-it notes)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages