Mario, Just a thought, if the customise definition was to accept both glyph and symbol as parameters this may be an easier approach. \customise _glyph="〖" _glyphName="openenc" _endString="〗" _symbol=highlight _classes=".highlight" _mode=inline even an new \customise-def that accepts _glyphs and _glyphNames and \customise does not.
Then all the existing definitions would be transferred into this form, but could be altered. Accepting a _glyphName="openenc" (open enclosed brackets) for subsequent use such as \customise openenc _classes=".highlight-green" In effect a redefinition, like the current customise. In the worst case there will need to be a start-up process that puts glyph definitions in a specific tiddler into a table, ie reload to add new glyphs. Forgive me for interfering in this aspect of coding, which I am as yet unable to contribute to myself. I wish you had another "coder" (or more) sharing your effort. I would just add to the general discussion, whilst global customise is a valuable tool, I can see customise being added to the specific tiddlers that wish to use extended mark-up, so in many cases the scope will only be the current tiddler. If a text contains a glyph the editor can just choose another for their special mark-up, a small popup panel could list the glyphs found in a tiddler. Another approach is using a custom type field, and the type which is equivalent to a mime type also permits providing the character set. Regards Tony On Thursday, 29 October 2020 01:53:12 UTC+11, PMario wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 1:50:44 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> *Regarding User Possibility To Set Markup Glyphs?* >> >> TonyM wrote: >>> >>> >>> *Question - customised Glyphs, a glyph too far?* >>> >>> - As you can see the wide range of glyphs available that have >>> meaning or structure makes me wish to ask if we could allow the user to >>> nominate glyphs either single (line/para/blocks) or pairs for inline or >>> block. ie customise the customise glyphs. >>> >>> >> Ciao TonyM & PMario >> >> IF this were possible I WOULD use it. >> > > ... need to think about it. But it would make configuration a hell lot > more complex. > > >> Why? Because the kinds of Markup I do would benefit from me being able to >> choose glyphs VISUALLY SUITED to the purpose. >> For instance, for simple paragraphs ... >> >> ¶ Start of a paragraph, >> more of the same pargraph endedon the next line. >> ⁋ <--- End String >> >> I understand if its not possible. >> > > It would be possible to use pilcrows as "start" and "end" of a paragraph, > but I don't understand why. > > TW Pargraphs end with \n\n by default > > So the "reversed pilcrow" ⁋ <--- End String is redundant and for me > personally it is confusing, since Libre Office and Word use: ¶ as a > paragraph marker. ... It may be wrong, but it is shown at the *end* of a > paragraph. ... So the reverse pilcrow feels completely wrong at that > position. > > *I could implement:* > > ¶ some text \n\n > > Since it would be the right thing to do. see: Wikipedia Pilcrow > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilcrow>. It would be easy to explain, > with the link to Wikipedia. It will create a HTML P tag by default. > > If you want you can define an _endString. ... Default would be \n\n > > -mario > -- 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 tiddlywikidev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/e1e3292d-d7ef-4bee-87e1-aad00b5c43e4o%40googlegroups.com.
