Jeremy, thanks for clarification. Follow up question, to everyone, I guess;
In what way is the "export as HTML" feature not enough for people? Or, I should put it like this; In the github discussion <https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/1676>, on the matter of JavaScript for static sites, Jeremy writes he'd favour "following the principles of progressive enhancement". Would it not make sense to apply "progressive enhancement" overall by starting with the existing "export as HTML" feature and adding the smallest number of features needed to make it fully usable for SSG? Or are there fundamental limitations with this - and this is perhaps why James' phasersonkill <http://phasersonkill.com/2015/04/23/creating-a-static-webpage-using-tiddlywiki.html>variant requires nodejs-TW (or why is that)? <:-) -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/5ec53b53-977c-4e5b-a978-ce19c53a8a66%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
