Practically WYSIWYIG is part of this. The point of this is whether we still value (or need) the idea of PLAIN TEXT representing something worth having. Markdown originally emerged for email as much as for the web. The idea was to be able to AUTHOR in a text style that was readable regardless of the final rendering.
I'm sceptical it applies now in the same way. Years have passed. I DO think that SHORTCUT markup systems are still good. BUT. BUT. But like: you can ALSO use shortcuts towards in HTML live editing too. Its an interesting issue. Whether TW is somewhat OVER-valuing "fading systems of mark-up" or not. I'm personally divided on the issue but do see a tension. The problem with HTML is only readability (the LOGIC is great, the visuals of the actual code are crap). I'd far rather have my originating stuff in TiddlyWiki / Markdown / MediaWiki syntax IF i don't have true WYSIWYG in the editor. Once I have that I don't care. Just thoughts Josiah TonyM wrote: > ... To me HTML is an essential skill and I see no harm choosing it when it > suits. With all the talk of alternate markup/down I hope we do not > compromise TiddlyWikis direct relationship to the pervasive standards on > the internet such as HTML/CSS especially since that is how the tiddlywiki > is rendered. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7fd8ed43-4a66-4146-bf61-f594f85b919a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
