Hi Flibbles, No significant changes to saving no node.js. Currently tiddlers of type text/vnd.tiddlywiki are saved as .tid, files unless they have mutliline fields in which case those tiddlers are saved as .json files. This will remain the same with the addendum that a tiddler with field names with a colon in them will also be saved as a .json file.
Saq On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 9:21:17 PM UTC+2 Flibbles wrote: > Hey all, > > Question: Is this going to impact the way NodeJS servers saves tiddlers to > file? Will they no longer be .tid files, and maybe be .json files instead? > > -Flibbles > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4 TW Tones wrote: > >> Springer, >> >> From a design perspective for column headings I would stick to a standard >> fields such as column-heading with the value"🎾" on a tiddler called >> "tennis", or as the case may be a sport tiddler. >> >> Already dynamic tables support alternate column names in a standard >> field/value and there is not reason in my view to tamper with fieldnames. >> >> I am sure there are reasons, but your suggestion to me, is like I posted >> previously, you may be about to hang yourself with the extra rope you have >> being given for field names. I would avoid this excursion unless you can >> establish a good reason otherwise you are possibly forgoing the ability to >> use your tiddlers, with the large library of plugins and macros that have >> gone before. >> >> Just my viewpoint >> Tones >> >> >> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 23:58:23 UTC+10 springer wrote: >> >>> Mario, >>> >>> Thanks for the bracket fix! (I should have caught that, but was getting >>> bleary-eyed.) >>> >>> When you say, "you mainly test with tiddler titles, and not fields. Even >>> if you have strange field names...," I'm not sure what you mean. I have >>> focused mostly on having strange field names that correspond to strange >>> tiddler titles, partly because I anticipate that the newly open field-name >>> space will get half its value from letting field names correspond to >>> tiddler titles. And because of the centrality of Shiraz to my own workflow, >>> I have been testing how Shiraz (especially dynamic tables) behaves with the >>> new field name possibilities. >>> >>> My other anticipated use for strange field names is to serve as compact >>> headings in dynamic tables, where the difference between "tennis" and 🎾 or >>> "recyclable" and ♻︎ (in a field with √ or X values) is conservation of >>> horizontal table space. >>> >>> So: What other kinds of tests do you (and others) see as important? >>> Though my coding skills are minimal, the challenge to test the limits of a >>> new feature is one area where I enjoy chipping in as best I can. >>> >>> -Springer >>> >>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-4 PMario wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> Nice tests, but you mainly test with tiddler titles, and not fields. >>>> Even if you have strange field names in your tiddlers. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://springerspandrel.github.io/tw/new-json-tw-experiment.html#Show%20related%20field-table%20(ViewTemplate) >>>> >>>> .. The filter is probably broken, because the number of opne/close braces >>>> are wrong. The last closing brace is missing ...first[]] >>>> >>>> BUT I didn't test the code. >>>> >>>> -mario >>>> >>>> -- 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/a221df3d-3386-4aa0-bffd-f8632bff0967n%40googlegroups.com.
