Just for the people landindg here searching for a "tiny" TiddlyWiki", there is *FeatherWiki*, described by Robbie Antenesse <https://robbie.antenesse.net> (creator) "to be just like TiddlyWiki <https://tiddlywiki.com>, but with the smallest file size possible". It is 50 times smaller than an empty TiddlyWiki, and it's compatible with Tiddlyhost.
I made use of FeatherWiki to create an "eCard" named "TiddlyCard", that made distributed verification possible between Mastodon and a wiki published in Tiddlyhost. https://feather.wiki/ https://github.com/simonbaird/tiddlyhost/wiki/FAQ#what-is-feather-wiki https://leoperbo.tiddlyhost.com/ https://mstdn.mx/@leoperbo/109356422428292257 El martes, 13 de mayo de 2014 a las 4:01:15 UTC-5, PMario escribió: > On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:42:36 AM UTC+2, RunningUtes wrote: >> >> Just wondering if anyone had tried to strip out anything to make a TW5 as >> small as possible say for read only display of information. > > > Are you talking about a downloaded empty.html or a downloaded version of > tiddlywiki.com? > > TW.com contains all translated interface languages. So your users may need > only one or 2 of them. > > As mentioned already, you can create > > * as single file, that contains a static version of all tiddlers. No > javascript ... should work with all browsers. > * many static files, that contain single tiddlers. No javascript ... > should work with all browsers. > > or > > * if you want TW functionality (eg: search), you could compress the > javascript source code, to get a smaller file size. > > IMO at the moment it doesn't make sense to compress the core js code. ... > I doubt it ever will. > > reasons: > > * A well designed server will send a compressed version over the wire, to > the browser. So web traffic will be less, than the actual file size. > * 621kByte sent 2100kByte file size ... tiddlywiki.com.html > * 187kByte sent 892kByte file size ... empty.html > > * In my opinion, the advantage to have readable source code, outweights > the win of less disk space. > * Many users include images into there TWs. So if you include one image > with about 300kbyte, the "compressed javascript" file size advantage is > gone. > * Harddisk space is cheap. > * Maintaining a compressed TW is not cheap. > > just my 2 cents > -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/ab846931-9af1-4022-a8a6-0820a1121d46n%40googlegroups.com.