date:20220116

@TiddlyTweeter

" Whom are you thinking needs the "*caller*" / "*callee*" differentiation"

In the context of TiddlyWiki, nobody! I put it in just as an another 
example for the "er"-"ee"-relationship (see for instance Suffixes -er and 
-ee ). It is 
useful as a common concept or abstraction to express that seemingly 
non-related things (i.e. on process calling another, one function calling 
another, one person calling another) have the same structure, and that 
aspects that pertain to one instance of this concepts might be 
transferrable to another instance of this concept (i.e. to save work).

"Certainly any idea you *have* to be a full-on programmer to deep tweak TW 
would be wrong."

I don't know what you mean by "full-on programmer". TwiddlyWiki uses 
several well established programming and 'page-description' languages 
(HTML, CSS, Javascript, Markup) plus its own wikitext syntax for macros, 
pragmas, etc. The mastery of each of these requires some amount of time and 
practice. I guess, you didn't start out with transclusions and tweaking 
TiddlyWiki when you first started using it?  Even if you don't consider 
yourself a 'programmer', neverless programming is what you are doing when 
you tweak TW.  But that's just semantics, nothing productive...

So the lore, wisdom, principles, etc. of the programming community as a 
whole might be applicable to TW as well. For instance, the general 
programming principles, that function should do one thing and one thing 
only or that a function should be as small as possible, apply to macros as 
well.

Have a neice evening,
-Reinhard

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:11:45 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

> reinhard:  I have an extensive programming background*. *In Programming 
> there it is never a question if a function is the *caller* or the *callee*, 
> even with recursive functions. And in programming *recursion* is an 
> advanced topic, that is definitely not for neophytes.
>
> Right. Sort of. BUT in TiddlyWiki many of the skilled tweakers are *not 
> *professional 
> programmers. That is part of it's character--practically it is used by folk 
> of many kinds. Regarding the OP, I think it will appeal to the "hobbyist 
> jacker" too ...who is the neophyte+. Certainly any idea you *have* to be 
> a full-on programmer to deep tweak TW would be wrong. The whole thing we do 
> here is testament that it isn't. 
>
> So in that context it might be worth revisiting your interesting OP. 
>
> Whom are you thinking needs the "*caller*" / "*callee*" differentiation?
>
> Anyway, happy today
> TT
>
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 14:06:45 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>
>> " Overall I like where you coming from."
>> And what might this be?
>>
>> *"Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
>> neophytes?"*
>>
>> *I wouldn't even try!* IMHO, *recursion* and *complex nested 
>> transclusions* are topics for people that are no longer neophytes.
>>
>> I'm have an extensive programming background*. *In Programming there it 
>> is never a question if a function is the *caller* or the *callee*, even 
>> with recursive functions. And in programming *recursion* is an advanced 
>> topic, that is definitely not for neophytes.
>>
>> Have a nice day!
>> -Reinhard
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:01:39 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>>
>>> Ciao reinhard,
>>>
>>> Nice post! To get to the grist...
>>>
>>> reinhard: "there is never a doubt which tiddler is which"
>>>
>>> Ah! There is! In your own OP you sensibly want to differentiate "der" 
>>> from  "dee".
>>> My concern is for the Virgin User who likely has no idea what 
>>> *recursion* is; how would they know an "er" from an "ee"?
>>>
>>> *Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
>>> neophytes?*
>>>
>>> This is just a thought. 
>>> Overall I like where you coming from.
>>>
>>> Best, TT
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:56:49 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 @TiddlyTweeter

 *"No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* 
 transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee.*

 Yes, of course. That' the whole crux of the matter. Any tiddler can 
 take on both the role of a transcluder and a transcludee. It depends on 
 the 
 context. But given two tiddlers with a transclusion relationship there is 
 never a doubt which tiddler is which.
 "Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded 
 from what is transcluding."

 Its not the concern of the *transcluder* if the *transcludee* produces 
 its content by nested transclusions or not. So positional referencing is 
 not needed.

 "FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a 
 *third 
 term* too to help *explicate nesting*."

 Why? We say transclusions are *nested*, if a *

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

reinhard:  I have an extensive programming background*. *In Programming 
there it is never a question if a function is the *caller* or the *callee*, 
even with recursive functions. And in programming *recursion* is an 
advanced topic, that is definitely not for neophytes.

Right. Sort of. BUT in TiddlyWiki many of the skilled tweakers are *not 
*professional 
programmers. That is part of it's character--practically it is used by folk 
of many kinds. Regarding the OP, I think it will appeal to the "hobbyist 
jacker" too ...who is the neophyte+. Certainly any idea you *have* to be a 
full-on programmer to deep tweak TW would be wrong. The whole thing we do 
here is testament that it isn't. 

So in that context it might be worth revisiting your interesting OP. 

Whom are you thinking needs the "*caller*" / "*callee*" differentiation?

Anyway, happy today
TT

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 14:06:45 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:

> @TiddlyTweeter
>
> " Overall I like where you coming from."
> And what might this be?
>
> *"Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
> neophytes?"*
>
> *I wouldn't even try!* IMHO, *recursion* and *complex nested 
> transclusions* are topics for people that are no longer neophytes.
>
> I'm have an extensive programming background*. *In Programming there it 
> is never a question if a function is the *caller* or the *callee*, even 
> with recursive functions. And in programming *recursion* is an advanced 
> topic, that is definitely not for neophytes.
>
> Have a nice day!
> -Reinhard
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:01:39 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>> Ciao reinhard,
>>
>> Nice post! To get to the grist...
>>
>> reinhard: "there is never a doubt which tiddler is which"
>>
>> Ah! There is! In your own OP you sensibly want to differentiate "der" 
>> from  "dee".
>> My concern is for the Virgin User who likely has no idea what *recursion* 
>> is; how would they know an "er" from an "ee"?
>>
>> *Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
>> neophytes?*
>>
>> This is just a thought. 
>> Overall I like where you coming from.
>>
>> Best, TT
>>
>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:56:49 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>>
>>> *"No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* 
>>> transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee.*
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. That' the whole crux of the matter. Any tiddler can take 
>>> on both the role of a transcluder and a transcludee. It depends on the 
>>> context. But given two tiddlers with a transclusion relationship there is 
>>> never a doubt which tiddler is which.
>>> "Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded 
>>> from what is transcluding."
>>>
>>> Its not the concern of the *transcluder* if the *transcludee* produces 
>>> its content by nested transclusions or not. So positional referencing is 
>>> not needed.
>>>
>>> "FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a *third 
>>> term* too to help *explicate nesting*."
>>>
>>> Why? We say transclusions are *nested*, if a *transcludee* (a 
>>> transcluded tiddler) in turn transcludes another tiddler and so takes on 
>>> the role of a *trancluder* relative to this thidd tiddler.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>>>
 @Mat

 Never mind! 

 Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the 
 employed person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about 
 transclusions into my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
 *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
 cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I 
 thought 
 they might be useful in general.

 Thanks for your remarks!

 -Reinhard

 On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:

> @TiddlyTweeter
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is 
> potentially *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in 
> that context, the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so 
> transparent in actual use"
>
> If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both 
> the roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
> transcludee produces its content.
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1d104045-bd0f-46ac-abca-7609f1d56eaen%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

2022-01-16 Thread PMario

That's an interesting discussion. I think it's new. I cant remember, that
we did discuss it yet. ...

At tiddlywiki.com we have the following tiddlers that explain how we use
the transclusion mechanism.
See: Doc links

- Transclusion
- Transclusion in WikiText
- Transclusion Basic Usage
- Transclusion with Templates
- Transclusion and Substitution
- TextReference
- TemplateTiddlers
- TranscludeWidget

We talk about the proposed "transcludee" as a basic "transclusion". The
term "transcluder" isn't used because it doesn't really matter.
When tiddlers are displayed, transclusions are transparent. Users only see
them if they open the tiddler in edit mode. So a "transcluder" is just a
*tiddler*. ...

In a slightly different context we talk about "transcludees" as a "*text
references*". So the term we use is "text reference", because it's that
what it does.

In another context we call the "transcludee" a "*template*" because it does
a slightly different thing as a standard transclusion. Templates can be
compared to parametrized transclusion
where the
resulting text uses variables to create a "new" text output.

So in reality we have terms for different types of transcludees, which imo
makes that term obsolete. I think it's not precise enough.

Tiddler, transclusion, text-reference and template are the terms we have
already established, to precisely describe how transclusions are used with
TiddlyWiki.

just some thoughts
mario

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7a4295b9-a5ae-4a7d-a7a5-b73bb635bd98n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter

" Overall I like where you coming from."
And what might this be?

*"Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
neophytes?"*

*I wouldn't even try!* IMHO, *recursion* and *complex nested transclusions* 
are topics for people that are no longer neophytes.

I'm have an extensive programming background*. *In Programming there it is 
never a question if a function is the *caller* or the *callee*, even with 
recursive functions. And in programming *recursion* is an advanced topic, 
that is definitely not for neophytes.

Have a nice day!
-Reinhard

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 1:01:39 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

> Ciao reinhard,
>
> Nice post! To get to the grist...
>
> reinhard: "there is never a doubt which tiddler is which"
>
> Ah! There is! In your own OP you sensibly want to differentiate "der" 
> from  "dee".
> My concern is for the Virgin User who likely has no idea what *recursion* 
> is; how would they know an "er" from an "ee"?
>
> *Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
> neophytes?*
>
> This is just a thought. 
> Overall I like where you coming from.
>
> Best, TT
>
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:56:49 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>
>> *"No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* 
>> transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee.*
>>
>> Yes, of course. That' the whole crux of the matter. Any tiddler can take 
>> on both the role of a transcluder and a transcludee. It depends on the 
>> context. But given two tiddlers with a transclusion relationship there is 
>> never a doubt which tiddler is which.
>> "Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded 
>> from what is transcluding."
>>
>> Its not the concern of the *transcluder* if the *transcludee* produces 
>> its content by nested transclusions or not. So positional referencing is 
>> not needed.
>>
>> "FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a *third 
>> term* too to help *explicate nesting*."
>>
>> Why? We say transclusions are *nested*, if a *transcludee* (a 
>> transcluded tiddler) in turn transcludes another tiddler and so takes on 
>> the role of a *trancluder* relative to this thidd tiddler.
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>>
>>> @Mat
>>>
>>> Never mind! 
>>>
>>> Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the 
>>> employed person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about 
>>> transclusions into my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
>>> *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
>>> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought 
>>> they might be useful in general.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your remarks!
>>>
>>> -Reinhard
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>>>
 @TiddlyTweeter

 You wrote:

 "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is 
 potentially *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in 
 that context, the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so 
 transparent in actual use"

 If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both 
 the roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
 The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
 strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
 transcludee produces its content.





-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d946c5dd-d084-43f5-9ec4-422a0e31eca3n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Ciao reinhard,

Nice post! To get to the grist...

reinhard: "there is never a doubt which tiddler is which"

Ah! There is! In your own OP you sensibly want to differentiate "der" from  
"dee".
My concern is for the Virgin User who likely has no idea what *recursion* 
is; how would they know an "er" from an "ee"?

*Broadly, in documents, how do we explain complex nested transclusion to 
neophytes?*

This is just a thought. 
Overall I like where you coming from.

Best, TT

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:56:49 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:

> @TiddlyTweeter
>
> *"No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* 
> transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee.*
>
> Yes, of course. That' the whole crux of the matter. Any tiddler can take 
> on both the role of a transcluder and a transcludee. It depends on the 
> context. But given two tiddlers with a transclusion relationship there is 
> never a doubt which tiddler is which.
> "Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded 
> from what is transcluding."
>
> Its not the concern of the *transcluder* if the *transcludee* produces 
> its content by nested transclusions or not. So positional referencing is 
> not needed.
>
> "FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a *third 
> term* too to help *explicate nesting*."
>
> Why? We say transclusions are *nested*, if a *transcludee* (a transcluded 
> tiddler) in turn transcludes another tiddler and so takes on the role of a 
> *trancluder* relative to this thidd tiddler.
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>
>> @Mat
>>
>> Never mind! 
>>
>> Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the employed 
>> person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about transclusions into 
>> my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
>> *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
>> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought 
>> they might be useful in general.
>>
>> Thanks for your remarks!
>>
>> -Reinhard
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>>
>>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
>>> *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, 
>>> the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in 
>>> actual use"
>>>
>>> If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both the 
>>> roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
>>> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
>>> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
>>> transcludee produces its content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/dae10754-c6d2-4689-aca5-e70dae3bd026n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Well, what a nice Sunday morning exchange.

-Reinhard

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 12:03:22 PM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

> Mat "I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* 
> (pronounced 
> with a French accent, in my mind) I don’t expect anyone else to use it"
>
> You, bricoleur , you :-)
>
> TT
>
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:58:02 UTC+1 Mat wrote:
>
>> I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* (pronounced 
>> with a French accent, in my mind) I don't expect anyone else to use it but 
>> I stick to it because I think it is funny (...hm, I'm not normally that 
>> easily amused). If anyone has to ask what I mean, then no biggie. So, I say 
>> go with your terminology, whatever makes you happy!
>>
>> <:-)
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @Mat
>>>
>>> Never mind! 
>>>
>>> Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the 
>>> employed person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about 
>>> transclusions into my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
>>> *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
>>> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought 
>>> they might be useful in general.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your remarks!
>>>
>>> -Reinhard
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>>>
 @TiddlyTweeter

 You wrote:

 "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is 
 potentially *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in 
 that context, the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so 
 transparent in actual use"

 If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both 
 the roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
 The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
 strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
 transcludee produces its content.





-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/63cb1f58-8581-4d77-be48-2bb24028a686n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Mat "I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* 
(pronounced 
with a French accent, in my mind) I don’t expect anyone else to use it"

You, bricoleur , you :-)

TT

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 11:58:02 UTC+1 Mat wrote:

> I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* (pronounced 
> with a French accent, in my mind) I don't expect anyone else to use it but 
> I stick to it because I think it is funny (...hm, I'm not normally that 
> easily amused). If anyone has to ask what I mean, then no biggie. So, I say 
> go with your terminology, whatever makes you happy!
>
> <:-)
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> @Mat
>>
>> Never mind! 
>>
>> Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the employed 
>> person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about transclusions into 
>> my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
>> *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
>> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought 
>> they might be useful in general.
>>
>> Thanks for your remarks!
>>
>> -Reinhard
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>>
>>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
>>> *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, 
>>> the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in 
>>> actual use"
>>>
>>> If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both the 
>>> roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
>>> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
>>> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
>>> transcludee produces its content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1107c8ab-79f2-4a91-9cfa-a04b8a6b332en%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

I occasionally refer to people who use tiddlywiki as *tiddleurs* (pronounced 
with a French accent, in my mind) I don't expect anyone else to use it but 
I stick to it because I think it is funny (...hm, I'm not normally that 
easily amused). If anyone has to ask what I mean, then no biggie. So, I say 
go with your terminology, whatever makes you happy!

<:-)

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> @Mat
>
> Never mind! 
>
> Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the employed 
> person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about transclusions into 
> my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
> *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought 
> they might be useful in general.
>
> Thanks for your remarks!
>
> -Reinhard
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>
>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
>> *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, 
>> the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in 
>> actual use"
>>
>> If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both the 
>> roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
>> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
>> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
>> transcludee produces its content.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/5cf94336-ca24-4425-9b84-a044fc4cae2an%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter

*"No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* 
transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee.*

Yes, of course. That' the whole crux of the matter. Any tiddler can take on 
both the role of a transcluder and a transcludee. It depends on the 
context. But given two tiddlers with a transclusion relationship there is 
never a doubt which tiddler is which.
"Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded from 
what is transcluding."

Its not the concern of the *transcluder* if the *transcludee* produces its 
content by nested transclusions or not. So positional referencing is not 
needed.

"FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a *third 
term* too to help *explicate nesting*."

Why? We say transclusions are *nested*, if a *transcludee* (a transcluded 
tiddler) in turn transcludes another tiddler and so takes on the role of a 
*trancluder* relative to this thidd tiddler.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:36:55 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:

> @Mat
>
> Never mind! 
>
> Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the employed 
> person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about transclusions into 
> my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
> *TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to 
> cumbersome. So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought 
> they might be useful in general.
>
> Thanks for your remarks!
>
> -Reinhard
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:
>
>> @TiddlyTweeter
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
>> *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, 
>> the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in 
>> actual use"
>>
>> If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both the 
>> roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
>> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
>> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
>> transcludee produces its content.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/3abb5bd9-d662-4be0-98b7-b87d04baab7fn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@Mat

Never mind! 

Just image you always have to say "the employing person" vs "the employed 
person". Anyway, I wanted to add some information about transclusions into 
my wiki and looked for some suitable tiddler titles. 
*TheTranscludingTiddler* and *TheTranscludedTiddler* seemed to cumbersome. 
So I chose the suggested terms. They work for me, and I thought they might 
be useful in general.

Thanks for your remarks!

-Reinhard

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:21:10 AM UTC+1 Reinhard Engel wrote:

> @TiddlyTweeter
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
> *radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, 
> the terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in 
> actual use"
>
> If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both the 
> roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
> The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is 
> strictly binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
> transcludee produces its content.
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/66a13633-832e-4db3-90b5-8e0959028e37n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Static render suppress URI encode

2022-01-16 Thread Tristan

To make prettier permalinks for my setup and making the URL hackable I 
changed my render command. All files do get created but internal links are 
still URI encoded and therefore do no longer work:

tiddlywiki . --render "[!is[system]]" "" "text/plain" 
"$:/core/templates/static.tiddler.html" --render 
"$:/core/templates/static.template.css" "static.css" "text/plain"

Tiddler 2022/010 results in a file 010.html inside 2022. But all links 
still use default *2022%252F010%252F0.html* which breaks all internal 
links. I think I have to modify *tv-wikilink-template* in  
*$:/core/templates/static.tiddler.html* but how?

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/4930f9a3-9a29-4c85-b2ce-da0147b5df3cn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@TiddlyTweeter

You wrote:

"Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
*radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, the 
terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in actual 
use"

If transclusions are nested, each intermediate tiddler takes on both the 
roles *transcludee* and *transcluder*.
The relationship is between the transcluder and the transcludee is strictly 
binary. The transcluder doesn't and shouldn't care about how the 
transcludee produces its content.



-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/9e3e47d5-41ea-4dd3-a8bf-500fb28084dcn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology



reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:

The tiddler that’s referencing another tiddler is called the *transcluder*, 
the tiddler (content) that is being included is called the *transcludee*.

That would be it.

---

*No, it wouldn't.* The residual issue is* positional reference. *A* 
transcluder *is* relative *to a *transcludee. *
Without positional referencing you would not know what is transcluded from 
what is transcluding.

FYI, I think your basic split in terms is useful, but you'll need a *third 
term* too to help *explicate nesting*.

A comment
TT

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 10:53:13 UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:

> @Mat
>
> Why LOL?
>
> Normally, every new term has to be explained when it is introduced. What's 
> wrong with
>
> *Transclusion* is generally the inclusion of the content of a tiddler 
> into another tiddler by reference. The tiddler that's referencing another 
> tiddler is called the *transcluder*, the tiddler (content) that is being 
> included is called the *transcludee*.
>
> That would be it.
>
> Surely, these two new terms are not stranger than the term *tiddler*, 
> that has also to be explained. But once you have grokked it, you understand 
> it everywhere.
>
> -Reinhard
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:14:43 AM UTC+1 Mat wrote:
>
>> LOL! Sure, but you're running the risk of having to explain the term 
>> which kind of nullifies the point... ;-)
>>
>> <:-)
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When talking about transclusions, it's a little cumbersome to talk about 
>>> *the 
>>> tiddler that's doing the transclusion* and *the tiddler that's being 
>>> transcluded*.
>>>
>>> So, if it has been done before or elsewhere, may I suggest the two terms
>>>
>>> *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion)
>>> *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded)
>>>
>>> patterned af *employer* and *employee*?
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7f6eec77-95de-4234-901c-10f37bd66f81n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

Sorry, I just thought it was funny but I guess not. I've personally never 
had a problem to say e.g "the transcluding tiddler" vs "the transcluded 
tiddler".

<:-)

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 10:53:13 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> @Mat
>
> Why LOL?
>
> Normally, every new term has to be explained when it is introduced. What's 
> wrong with
>
> *Transclusion* is generally the inclusion of the content of a tiddler 
> into another tiddler by reference. The tiddler that's referencing another 
> tiddler is called the *transcluder*, the tiddler (content) that is being 
> included is called the *transcludee*.
>
> That would be it.
>
> Surely, these two new terms are not stranger than the term *tiddler*, 
> that has also to be explained. But once you have grokked it, you understand 
> it everywhere.
>
> -Reinhard
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:14:43 AM UTC+1 Mat wrote:
>
>> LOL! Sure, but you're running the risk of having to explain the term 
>> which kind of nullifies the point... ;-)
>>
>> <:-)
>>
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When talking about transclusions, it's a little cumbersome to talk about 
>>> *the 
>>> tiddler that's doing the transclusion* and *the tiddler that's being 
>>> transcluded*.
>>>
>>> So, if it has been done before or elsewhere, may I suggest the two terms
>>>
>>> *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion)
>>> *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded)
>>>
>>> patterned af *employer* and *employee*?
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7c642eba-fa1c-4d9c-8ea2-cb0e4cc73d99n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

@Mat

Why LOL?

Normally, every new term has to be explained when it is introduced. What's 
wrong with

*Transclusion* is generally the inclusion of the content of a tiddler into 
another tiddler by reference. The tiddler that's referencing another 
tiddler is called the *transcluder*, the tiddler (content) that is being 
included is called the *transcludee*.

That would be it.

Surely, these two new terms are not stranger than the term *tiddler*, that 
has also to be explained. But once you have grokked it, you understand it 
everywhere.

-Reinhard

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:14:43 AM UTC+1 Mat wrote:

> LOL! Sure, but you're running the risk of having to explain the term which 
> kind of nullifies the point... ;-)
>
> <:-)
>
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> When talking about transclusions, it's a little cumbersome to talk about 
>> *the 
>> tiddler that's doing the transclusion* and *the tiddler that's being 
>> transcluded*.
>>
>> So, if it has been done before or elsewhere, may I suggest the two terms
>>
>> *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion)
>> *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded)
>>
>> patterned af *employer* and *employee*?
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e0b6d8d5-d4da-42e7-baee-eac6e70d2b39n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: gg VS talkW

Jeremy Ruston wrote:

> I plan to update tiddlywiki.com to link to talk.tiddlywiki.org shortly, 
> and I think that will be the point where it stops being an experiment.

IMO the time is ripe! :-) I think newcomers post here without realizing 
that this GG is now a "subset" of talk. And they may mistakenly believe the 
community is less active than it really is.

Other than then removing the word "experimental" from the GG forum header 
here, I would also propose to modify that header message to mention that 
"Any posts made here in Google groups also appear as copies in 
talk.tiddlywiki.org" or some such.

<:-) 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/87ec7c31-0ea5-4a14-8de8-4e2276fa5769n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:

> ... may I suggest the two terms
>
> *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion)
> *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded)
>

I think that is a neat observation! The "linguistics" of terms in computing 
generally often lacks the precision to know what is the "subject" and what 
is the "object". They blurr. In the specific case: you are pointing to a 
language issue that actually could be very relevant to beginners to 
understand what is what in real usage.

Part of the issue* though* is that in TW "transclusion" is potentially 
*radical*. Transclusions can be nested infinitely. So, in that context, the 
terms "Transcluder" / "Transcludee" would not be so transparent in actual 
use.

Just a comment
TT

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d3620a7e-0348-4f8f-ae34-e0608a94634dn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Transclusion Terminology

LOL! Sure, but you're running the risk of having to explain the term which 
kind of nullifies the point... ;-)

<:-)

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:57:24 AM UTC+1 reinhard...@gmail.com wrote:

> When talking about transclusions, it's a little cumbersome to talk about *the 
> tiddler that's doing the transclusion* and *the tiddler that's being 
> transcluded*.
>
> So, if it has been done before or elsewhere, may I suggest the two terms
>
> *Transcluder* (the tiddler that's doing the transclusion)
> *Transcludee* (the tiddler that's being transcluded)
>
> patterned af *employer* and *employee*?
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0e5f02c9-d454-4741-a9f4-10d766029ee1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Re: How Many Tiddlers Should I Use?