> Yes, this one keeps eating away at me. There are powerful attractions > for keeping tiddlers in working storage in a more structured tree > format that makes it easier to do this kind of thing. (Another example > of something that's hard to do with the current architecture is a > checkbox that is typed [ ] and gets changed dynamically to [X] when it > is clicked).
I didn't really get this. What's the connection between rebinding (which should be based on the "references" list) and .. what the "working storage" really is? Neither I understant the issue with a checkbox.. I mean it's connection with the problem. I'd note that the references list should be formed a bit more carefully: as for now, links placed in comments (which can be sections that are shown with sliders) are not counted as references; as I remember, in some tests transclusion macros also didn't cause a creation of reference; but I'm not sure. > I may be wrong, but I don't think there are > many if any cases where someone would need to go from wysiwyg to wiki > markup and would not know which type of tiddler to create at the time > of creation. Yeap, you are wrong. The thing is not about someone would not know the type. The thing is when you write things first (for example, when studying something), you need to write quickly. The WYSIWYM mode is not good because you actually don't know what you mean. You replicate, you try, but .. :) I can't say "don't mean anything" yet usually you don't mean anything exact. And WYSIWYG helps here a lot. But then, it is desirable sometimes to organize you thoughts, add css classes, some macros etc. So the WYSIWYG->wikitext conversion is vital. For some users, ofcourse. Yours, Yakov. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
