Underscores and dashes are pretty similar looking. If that matters any (i.e. if you already use either one in field names), then how about a period?
So "url.", looks nice to me. Then you could have url.name, url.target, etc. That becomes just a matter of personal preference. I think they are all fine for what you're thinking. On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 3:35:10 AM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: > Folks, > > I have come across a "problem" for which I am investigating a solution, > and keen to hear any ideas. ultimately I hope this to provide a generic > solution for advanced field handling I would share back into the community. > > *Problem:* > > Consider we may like to have a field in one or more tiddlers to store a > url to an external resource for that tiddler. > > Field: url, Value: https://tiddlywiki.com/#cycle%20Operator > > The thing is what if we wanted to store a simplified name such as "Cycle > Operator" or a target for links such as _blank or "operators" there is no > where to specify the url/name and url/target. when we construct a link to > this URL it would be nice to find the name/target for this url > field/tiddler combination. > > In future I also want to have a discussion-link tiddler with matching name > and target, with even more similar fields. > > *Possible approach* > We could use the "_" underscore to delimit such "subFields" and create > additional fieldnames such as url_name and url_target. Then when I have > code dealing with "url" it can look for fields beginning url_ to find its > "subfields". I wonder if this compromises the available fieldnames or > others plugins and solutions that make use of the "_" underscore more often > than I do? > > Perhaps such fields that may have subfields could end with "_" eg; "url_" > meaning subfields exist for this fieldname. > > *More complex systematic approach* > I could store in a data tiddler (For each tiddler) these additional > subfields, or even in a new special text field inside each tiddler. > > *A not so desirable approach* > Build all the handling to allow the url field (in this case) actually be > the full http link or html <a> tag. The problem being one may need to code > and decode the content of the url field for every add or change, also if > one had dozens of different link fields it could get messy. > > Your Thoughts? > Tones > -- 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/82bc4161-fc8c-46f8-818d-ce028d53cd4bn%40googlegroups.com.
