Ciao PMario > @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > The use case I am thinking of is allow me to simplyfy & share with others >> an approach to correct manuscripts. >> I work often using specialist software to proof edit articles & books for >> publishers. >> This uses a specific method and its own system of glyphs (based on >> "printers' corrections"). >> The software involved is very complex and expensive. >> I believe there is a way I could do this work in TW using your Custom >> Markup if I had a few special glyphs. >> >> I could explain it in detail if you wanted---but I don't want to overload >> you more than we have already :-) >> > > PMario ...
> *It would be interesting to know*. .. Otherwise may implement changes, > that work against your usecase, because I don't know it. .. Which probably > has happend already as using the pilcrow as a "paragraph" marker. ... Which > makes it impossible to be used as an inline marker. ... > Okay. Good. *Actually your pilcrow example is FINE!* My issue is its hard to explain if I can't code it to make examples, but I can't code examples it until its done enough to code them. It's a "chicken-and-egg" problem. So let's leave that aside for now? Right now, I reviewed my thoughts on this and I suspect it is very few "base block glyphs" I'd like to be able to set. They are ALL "block" elements. "Inline" I can foresee about a dozen ;-). But they can be handled well IF in inline we can do ELEMENTS as we do for blocks already. Best wishes TT -- 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/d2027246-87d8-4e38-8fb2-72d2b3af79eao%40googlegroups.com.
