On Monday, November 24, 2014 12:52:09 AM UTC+1, Tobias Beer wrote: > > > On a need basis perhaps? I.e if a part can be reused, then it is >> tiddlified to avoid redundance in the system. Not sure how to deal with if >> there's later a wish to change it in one context but not the other. Or >> maybe clone+change is obvoius solution? >> > > Yes, but that introduces a few questions, like... > > - What name should that new tiddler get? > > Finding proper name for tiddlers is always important and if you want to reference sections you need proper tiddler names *and* proper section names, otherwise your links will break in the future. So it doubles the complexity.
> > - Does it need tagging? > > Some tiddlers may need tagging, some may not. Similar problem to creating a TOC. The core can handle it already. > > - Any fields? > > If needed. eg: caption > > - Where do I need to link it? > > In the main "overview" tiddler > > - How do I put it into context? > > An eg: "executive summary tiddler" can have a list with 2-3 lines of info, to get an overview. A "show it all" tiddler can transclude the whole content. Those concepts are part of tiddlywiki.com already, so let us use it. > > - Does it need ordering in some list? > > may be. The core will get drag and drop UI for list sorting in the future. Do you want to provide the same functions for sections too, without modifying the tiddler text? To accomplish this, you'll need new tiddlers to store the configuration. So what do you win, except making the mechanisms more complicated? Whereas I could simply do some section magic > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/23PzU2qCsj4>, > reference that bit form anywhere, have it neatly displayed in a clickable > toc... and all those things that make not really big tiddlers not > nessessarily smaller than they have to be. > Why do you want to use magic, if you can use the core functions? > Let me put it slightly differently: there is a too small... in the sense > of: "smaller than is perhaps good for ya"... omg, all the uncertainty that > comes with the quantum-approach to anything. ^^ > At the beginning, I also wanted to have sections and slices back. ... but using tiddlers for everything creates the power that TW has at the moment. ... Implementing sections with the same functionality as tiddlers, would create more complexity in the core sw and is redundant, because tiddlers can do it already. If you search the group for *pmario *and *section *you may find those posts and Jeremys responses. *IMO tiddlers should be the smallest chunks of text we deal with. ... But we need to improve the UI to compose and manipulate them. ...* So if you want to have new plugins to make proper documentation possible, we need those plugins to fit to the global core concept. ... If we really need new core features to improve the documentation, Jeremy is needed to implement them. ... But that's a problem, if we want the moratorium. There are a lot of possibilities to be explored with TW. Falling back to TWclassic patterns will just limit us, even if it seems to be faster in the short run. ... So let us step forward and not backward. 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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
