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 config tiddler per field. IMO for consistency reasons. > 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,John,Joanna ... > I think mylist can only have 1 type, to be consistent and avoid the overhead. ... But you are right. it may cause "name clashes" between content from different users. > If you mean just for key fields like "list", I think anyone who had read > the documentation to find out the meaning of "field-type" would also have > already read the documentation to find out that "list" is a special field. > So the ultimate answer would be to make the documentation more engaging. > I think the goal should be, to make "list-like" behaviour, that is baked into the core atm, more usable for end-users. -m -- 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/57daf3bf-b918-4249-97ea-1811f407bed0%40googlegroups.com.
