*"hCard*" no "eCard" .__. El miércoles, 16 de noviembre de 2022 a las 21:37:27 UTC-6, leoperbo escribió:
> 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/a8f89090-d8d4-4d7f-8371-128aa84adb37n%40googlegroups.com.
