[tw5] Re: [TW5] smallest possible tiddlywiki?

2022-11-20 Thread Charlie Veniot 
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)

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 8:30:46 PM UTC-4 leoperbo wrote:

> *"hCard*" no "eCard" .__.
>
> El miércoles, 16 de noviembre de 2022 a las 21:37:27 UTC-6, leoperbo 
> escribió:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> https://feather.wiki/
>> https://github.com/simonbaird/tiddlyhost/wiki/FAQ#what-is-feather-wiki
>> https://leoperbo.tiddlyhost.com/
>> https://mstdn.mx/@leoperbo/109356422428292257
>> El martes, 13 de mayo de 2014 a las 4:01:15 UTC-5, PMario escribió:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7470021a-8359-47b7-888b-228c6c6870ean%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: [TW5] smallest possible tiddlywiki?

2022-11-17 Thread leoperbo 
*"hCard*" no "eCard" .__.

El miércoles, 16 de noviembre de 2022 a las 21:37:27 UTC-6, leoperbo 
escribió:

> 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.
>
> https://feather.wiki/
> https://github.com/simonbaird/tiddlyhost/wiki/FAQ#what-is-feather-wiki
> https://leoperbo.tiddlyhost.com/
> https://mstdn.mx/@leoperbo/109356422428292257
> El martes, 13 de mayo de 2014 a las 4:01:15 UTC-5, PMario escribió:
>
>> 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
>>
>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a8f89090-d8d4-4d7f-8371-128aa84adb37n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: [TW5] smallest possible tiddlywiki?

2022-11-16 Thread leoperbo 
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.

https://feather.wiki/
https://github.com/simonbaird/tiddlyhost/wiki/FAQ#what-is-feather-wiki
https://leoperbo.tiddlyhost.com/
https://mstdn.mx/@leoperbo/109356422428292257
El martes, 13 de mayo de 2014 a las 4:01:15 UTC-5, PMario escribió:

> 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
>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ab846931-9af1-4022-a8a6-0820a1121d46n%40googlegroups.com.