[tw] Re: The Myth of "Read Only" -- Let's Differentiate & Get Better

I can add even more complexity of use-case(s). A version that is editable and when saved generates a static html version that the public uses. This one requires an actual http server and is more of a content management system. On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 9:36:00 AM UTC-4, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

[tw] Re: The Myth of "Read Only" -- Let's Differentiate & Get Better

Going to static is less problematic because the result is no longer TW, but behaving children. I DO agree that attention to the richness of "outgate settings" is of great merit. Josiah Lost Admin wrote: > > I can add even more complexity of use-case(s). > > A version that is editable and when

[tw] Re: The Myth of "Read Only" -- Let's Differentiate & Get Better

Yeah, one could imagine an endless degree of granularity for various settings. But the only important question is: What do you or others want to control? <:-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and st

[tw] Re: The Myth of "Read Only" -- Let's Differentiate & Get Better

Ciao Mat right. its almost infinite. but not quite, fortunately. I was interested in how far you could push Step's thing , though with each option selectable (the possible nesting would be a complexity) and add more to

[tw] Re: The Myth of "Read Only" -- Let's Differentiate & Get Better

I don't know what I want to control. Mostly I use Tiddlywiki for myself. The one case where I use it for multiple people, none of them need any sort of write/update ability. So generating static pages works for me so far. I'm sure that will change in the future. On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2: