>
> Fair enough, I can live with that and gradually adopt... or a TW2 > TW5
> importer would do most of the job of transalting old markup to the new
> while perhaps also reporting on using unsupported macros. Perhaps a first
> PoC with rudimentary formats would be helpful to see if such a migration
> pattern actually feasible or rather months worth of coding.
>
Yes, I think that's a good project to work on. The existing TW wikifier
gives us the framework for parsing tiddlers in TW2 format, and it wouldn't
be too hard to generate wikitext from the parse tree.
>
> I *dig* the idea of accessing JSON tiddlers as it opens up room for a wide
> range of well structured development patterns, e.g. dictionaries, rather
> than loosely fuzzy stuff catering for all kinds of quirks. You could even
> have those JSON tiddlers lazily pre-parsed in memory to speed things up.
>
Data tiddlers are already cached in TW5.
> Perhaps the markup for that could actually be a simple JSON string in the
> same line, e.g.:
>
> {foo.bar.baz}
>
> ...which requires those inner dots, obviously. Otherwise, where's the
> query in that point?
>
The problem I was getting at is that we want to be able to reference
properties within tiddlers that have periods in their titles.
Params may eventually be needed if you want your query to be more than a
> simple "fetch this leaf"...
>
> {foo.bar.baz [with:] [param] [key:val] [param]}
>
I'm not sure that I understand the syntax here.
Seeing how at one point a desire to do the same with XML will most
> certainly pop up, perhaps it would be better if it were something like...
>
> {XML:foo.bar.baz [with:] [param] [key:val] [param]}
>
That takes us back to where I'm not keen to go: I think TW5 should be a
tool for manipulating tiddlers, not a tool for manipulating XML - we've
already got heaps of those, and I don't find them very interesting any more.
> But then the default JSON parser may not need such a qualifier, seeing how
> we all love simplicity ;-).
>
> This syntax can perhaps actually be reused to map a pseudo-collection of
> JSON-ified sections. So, in other words if you wanted to access sections,
> all you'd need is a JSON object that represents them and then pretty much
> the same ways of accessing that.
>
You may have spotted that tiddlers of type
"application/x-tiddler-dictionary" are basically a shortcut syntax for a
simple JSON hash.
Best wishes
Jeremy
>
> Cheers, Tobias.
>
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWikiDev" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
