So, referrring to my post above and the image, what do you say - would it work or is there some fundamental problem?
In a way it is merely about having some fields visible in view mode. My major concern is if is possible to use such a field as a tiddlertitlelink in the way tag names are? I.e can "foo:bar" or "bar" (i.e "foo" hidden) linkified and still work as a field? Maybe it only has to be linkified at the moment it is displayed? ...An interesting question is then what would happen when you click it? My thoughts are that you open a tiddler titled *bar*, i.e not with the type visible in the title... and the type is stored as... you guessed it... a regular field. Perhaps "tagtype:foo". Actually not strange - it's simply a field with the meta-data stating that when the tiddlertitle is used as a tag, it is of type "foo". Anothe question: is the idea possible with the two placehoders to fill in and have the system decide upon clicking the tick/Add, if it is to be a tag or a field, i.e based on if one or both placeholders were filled? BTW, what would happen if one simply ditched the special tags field and only used general fields but with a default value "tag" for whenever no other name/attribute was specified.? <:-) -- 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.
