[tw] Re: [TW5] vs [TWC] for new wikis?

2014-01-17 Thread Peter Vogt
Leo bluespire, Thank you both for you insights, they are very helpful. I'm still finding out more and more about both, seems to be quite a bumpy process with valuable info all over the place. TW5 seems to be progressing quite fast though. @Leo: yes I saw your other posts and been

[tw] Re: [TW5] vs [TWC] for new wikis?

2014-01-17 Thread PMario
On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:02:09 AM UTC+1, Peter Vogt wrote: @Leo: yes I saw your other posts and been wondering the same, also your observation on how long TW has been around and seemingly abandoned in places. Quite odd. Perhaps some of the longtime users will be able to shed some

[tw] Re: [TW5] vs [TWC] for new wikis?

2014-01-17 Thread PMario
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:39:41 PM UTC+1, PMario wrote: - The TW5 (deb) build process has the possibility to create static html pages from every tiddler in a TW see: http://tiddlywiki.com/static/HelloThere. There is no javascript uups, it should be: - TW5 (dev) build process ... -m

[tw] Re: [TW5] vs [TWC] for new wikis?

2014-01-16 Thread Leo Staley
I'm also new, but I've settled on TWC. TW5 still has loads of bugs to work out, and is still missing quite a few core features like permalinks. So, I personally suggest TWC. I actually asked a related question yesterday. I wanted to know how I should build my TWC so as to cause the least