[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 4:54:30 PM UTC+1, Mark S. wrote: > > Wouldn't this greatly increase overhead? In TW, each tiddler has it's own > collection of fields, and those fields may be used independently of any > other tiddler. > I don't think so. From my point of view, it would only need 1

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

Folks, I believe it is in a case like this, where we are trying to push a little more sophistication into tiddlywiki where the use of Google Groups starts to show its limitations. Perhaps some kind of online hangout where we can present and review each others approaches and increase collaborat

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

Mark et al, Field definitions field-types and macros can provision sophisticated by easy to use field without any core change or the use of Javascript. We already have all the tools available in tiddlywiki, I am building my own solution but a community developed defacto standard would have gre

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

MarkS, I understand what you mean and you are right that the same field may contain completely different data. *Having to* include all that meta data for every tiddler would bloat TW > even more, which already has ~100 bytes of overhead per tiddler. I imagine the template is *optional*: for

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

Wouldn't this greatly increase overhead? In TW, each tiddler has it's own collection of fields, and those fields may be used independently of any other tiddler. So "mylist" in one tiddler might be a standard title list field, but in another tiddler it might be a CSV list of work contacts Joe,Jo

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

PMario, > The boot.js contains some "tiddlerfields" module definition > , > > which allows special handling for different field types. > Yes, that would be a solution, but in editable

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

TonyM, It looks like we have a similar solution, but yours is more sophisticated than mine. I only define the "field-type" field ("list" / "value"), a "template" field ("<>", "<$ link />") used to display and a "direction" field ("from" / "to"; if the field can be used to represent a hierarchy

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

Bimlas, I have produced a commercial solution on tiddlywiki. To save time I developed a field definition solution and learned a lot in the process. No javascript needed it works very well. The key design points are below; - How do you reference the field(s)? Via the view template using a mac

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

Hi, The boot.js contains some "tiddlerfields" module definition , which allows special handling for different field types. They are loaded in load-modules.js

[tw5] Re: Fields should have definitions

In TiddlyTables, templates have been developed to treat each field differently! In Favorites plugin list field has been used to create folders On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:28:47 PM UTC+3:30, bimlas wrote: > > I'm developing a plugin that lists the values of the fields. As I was > writing