Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
Hi
One of the disadvantages of using the 'title' field as the unique ID is,
for example, the impossibility of having more than one tiddler with the
title 'Introduction'. If I wish to use a single TW for several
articles/books, each of which has an introduction -- I am forced to use
titles such as 'Article1 - Introduction' and 'Article2 - Introduction'.
Further, in the finished articles, I must then use labelled links such as
[[Introduction|Article1 - Introduction]], if I want the section to be
titled 'Introduction'.
This makes a strong case for the use of unique uuid's for linking to
tiddlers, with the 'title' field as an alias for the link to the tiddler.
A possible mechanism:
1. a unique ID for the tiddler is created when a new tiddler is first
saved, and
2. an addition is made to a dictionary mapping the new 'title' field to the
ID
3. when a title is edited, a new entry is added to the dictionary (but the
old one remains)
4. the tiddler can now be linked via the ID, the old title or the new title
5. any additional aliases may be added to the dictionary for the same ID
The problem here: that using the alias 'Introduction' will now link to
several ID's -- how do I specify which of the tiddlers with the alias
'Introduction' I wish to target?
My first thought on this is to use two 'anded' aliases to link to a
particular tiddler, when a single alias refers to several tiddler ID's --
[[Introduction Article1]]. Now, this will pick the correct tiddler, and
the displayed title will be whatever the current title of that tiddler --
in this case 'Introduction' -- which is my desired behaviour. The whole
scheme is beginning to look rather like tags!
Have no idea how difficult this would be to implement -- just an opinion
from an end-user point of view.
regards
On Monday, June 2, 2014 6:46:26 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
Hi Felix
That's the unavoidable, perennial question referred to above. A simple
formulation is: do we use the title field as the identifier for a tiddler
the title field, or do we use a separate ID field. The two options
can't co-exist, we need to choose one. TiddlyWiki chooses the former on the
basis that is a more human formulation, and that it can trivially emulate
the ID approach. But that is done by using the title field as an ID, not by
introducing a new ID field. The reason is because of the need to enforce
uniqueness: we guarantee the uniqueness of titles, but not of other fields.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
Regards
Felix
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:02:33 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an
abstract GUID is a perennial one.
My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if
it suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler
by it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of
the link. Here's an example of a macro to do that:
\define link(guid)
$tiddler tiddler=$guid$$link$view field=name//$link/$
tiddler
\end
This is a link by guid link qqu99yie1
Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro
to be automatically substituted for links.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers felixk...@hotmail.de
wrote:
Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a
non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me.
As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather
chose ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in
SQL autoincrement primary keys...
And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more
invisible as they have no semantic meaning.
However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a
really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title
of the link as a variable to use it in a local macro.
This way I could do something like
{{ 415241 | id }}
and put the filter in the macro instead of directly writing
{{{ [field:id[]!has[draft.of]first[]] }}}
that will make a nice shortcut...
On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30:38 PM UTC+2, Stephan Hradek wrote:
I can't see a fundamental difference between my alias approach and
using IDs. Except that ID's tend to be unreadable.
--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com javascript:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
Hi Felix That said, I apologize for bothering you with my newbie-opinions or questions, but from my understanding it is possible to have more than one unique-field that identifies a tiddler. Similar to SQL where I can have several unique attributes in a table that each could be used to identify a row. If a new tiddler is created, the system only needs to ensure that the title AND the id is unique. To have two unique tiddler fields in JavaScript would mean using a separate hashmap for each field that we want to enforce uniqueness. It would considerably complicate all the low level operations involving tiddlers. Right now, TW can be fast because the tiddler store is a very thin wrapper around JavaScript's native storage mechanisms. From this point on, it is the decision of the user to reference the tiddler by id or by title. As written above, I have introduced this mechanism in my wiki and it works well. The bit that you don't have is enforcement of the uniqueness of the ID, though. One could imagine adding tools that prompt you if you've got an ID clash, and that wouldn't be ridiculously expensive. But making it a properly enforced constraint is expensive. Providing a build-in alternative to a reference-by-title concept for those who want it would be a nice feature because links wouldn't break. Maybe it's not a common issue but I found a threat on stackexchange where a user had the same problem: http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/22850/changing-the-name-of-a-tiddler-in-tiddlywiki-and-retain-the-references-pointing Link breakage is definitely a common problem. As I said at the top, I'm keen to support the ID way of working as an option (using the title field as the ID), but I don't think it's practical to enforce multiple unique fields on the tiddler store. My preferred solution to the breaking links problem is also a solution to wider problems of wikitext authorship: a decent search and replace operation that is syntactically aware; it can reliably find and replace all the references to a tiddler (without being confused by plain text references to the same text). In any case, I fully support your choice to use the title as unique identifier and if TW internals do not allow the introduction of such a parallel-concept then it is totally fine. I think TW is great and offers much flexibility either way! So thank you for your work and your previous answers. Sorry for labouring the response to your points; I just figured it may be useful to lay out some of the reasoning. Best wishes Jeremy Greetings Felix On Monday, June 2, 2014 6:46:26 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote: Hi Felix By the way, is there any reason, why the tiddlers do not get a unique id on creation time as a field value per default? This would support people to create unbreakable references via ids, without the previous effort to give each tiddler a unique id or creating a custom button. That's the unavoidable, perennial question referred to above. A simple formulation is: do we use the title field as the identifier for a tiddler the title field, or do we use a separate ID field. The two options can't co-exist, we need to choose one. TiddlyWiki chooses the former on the basis that is a more human formulation, and that it can trivially emulate the ID approach. But that is done by using the title field as an ID, not by introducing a new ID field. The reason is because of the need to enforce uniqueness: we guarantee the uniqueness of titles, but not of other fields. Best wishes Jeremy. Regards Felix On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:02:33 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote: This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an abstract GUID is a perennial one. My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if it suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler by it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of the link. Here's an example of a macro to do that: \define link(guid) $tiddler tiddler=$guid$$link$view field=name//$link/$tiddl er \end This is a link by guid link qqu99yie1 Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro to be automatically substituted for links. Best wishes Jeremy. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers felixk...@hotmail.de wrote: Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me. As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather chose ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in SQL autoincrement primary keys... And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more invisible as they have no semantic meaning. However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title of
Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
Am Dienstag, 3. Juni 2014 12:51:04 UTC+2 schrieb Felix Küppers: That is true, I pray to god that the javascript function never creates the same id twice. http://tiddlystuff.tiddlyspot.com/ - UUIDmacro -- 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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an
abstract GUID is a perennial one.
My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if it
suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler by
it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of the
link. Here's an example of a macro to do that:
\define link(guid)
$tiddler tiddler=$guid$$link$view field=name//$link/$tiddler
\end
This is a link by guid link qqu99yie1
Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro to
be automatically substituted for links.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers felixkuepp...@hotmail.de
wrote:
Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a
non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me.
As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather chose
ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in SQL
autoincrement primary keys...
And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more
invisible as they have no semantic meaning.
However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a
really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title
of the link as a variable to use it in a local macro.
This way I could do something like
{{ 415241 | id }}
and put the filter in the macro instead of directly writing
{{{ [field:id[]!has[draft.of]first[]] }}}
that will make a nice shortcut...
On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30:38 PM UTC+2, Stephan Hradek wrote:
I can't see a fundamental difference between my alias approach and using
IDs. Except that ID's tend to be unreadable.
--
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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy.rus...@gmail.com
--
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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
Hi Jeremy,
I don't want to abolish titles replacing them entirely with mere ids :)
I only want to link via ids so nothing breaks when I change any title.
Therefore I will use a field to store a tiddler's id.
Making use of Stephan's suggestion I can now write {{ qqu99yie1 | id }}. So
I am quite satisfied for now.
However, thanks for pointing out the option to use the link and the view
widget together to be able to chose an alternate name based on a
field-value, that might come one handy at one point.
By the way, is there any reason, why the tiddlers do not get a unique id on
creation time as a field value per default?
This would support people to create unbreakable references via ids, without
the previous effort to give each tiddler a unique id or creating a custom
button.
Regards
Felix
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:02:33 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an
abstract GUID is a perennial one.
My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if it
suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler by
it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of the
link. Here's an example of a macro to do that:
\define link(guid)
$tiddler tiddler=$guid$$link$view field=name//$link/$tiddler
\end
This is a link by guid link qqu99yie1
Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro to
be automatically substituted for links.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers felixk...@hotmail.de
javascript: wrote:
Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a
non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me.
As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather chose
ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in SQL
autoincrement primary keys...
And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more
invisible as they have no semantic meaning.
However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a
really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title
of the link as a variable to use it in a local macro.
This way I could do something like
{{ 415241 | id }}
and put the filter in the macro instead of directly writing
{{{ [field:id[]!has[draft.of]first[]] }}}
that will make a nice shortcut...
On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30:38 PM UTC+2, Stephan Hradek wrote:
I can't see a fundamental difference between my alias approach and using
IDs. Except that ID's tend to be unreadable.
--
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+...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
javascript:.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com javascript:
--
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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
Hi Felix
By the way, is there any reason, why the tiddlers do not get a unique id
on creation time as a field value per default?
This would support people to create unbreakable references via ids,
without the previous effort to give each tiddler a unique id or creating a
custom button.
That's the unavoidable, perennial question referred to above. A simple
formulation is: do we use the title field as the identifier for a tiddler
the title field, or do we use a separate ID field. The two options
can't co-exist, we need to choose one. TiddlyWiki chooses the former on the
basis that is a more human formulation, and that it can trivially emulate
the ID approach. But that is done by using the title field as an ID, not by
introducing a new ID field. The reason is because of the need to enforce
uniqueness: we guarantee the uniqueness of titles, but not of other fields.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
Regards
Felix
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:02:33 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an
abstract GUID is a perennial one.
My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if it
suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler by
it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of the
link. Here's an example of a macro to do that:
\define link(guid)
$tiddler tiddler=$guid$$link$view field=name//$link/$
tiddler
\end
This is a link by guid link qqu99yie1
Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro to
be automatically substituted for links.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers felixk...@hotmail.de
wrote:
Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a
non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me.
As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather chose
ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in SQL
autoincrement primary keys...
And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more
invisible as they have no semantic meaning.
However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a
really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title
of the link as a variable to use it in a local macro.
This way I could do something like
{{ 415241 | id }}
and put the filter in the macro instead of directly writing
{{{ [field:id[]!has[draft.of]first[]] }}}
that will make a nice shortcut...
On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30:38 PM UTC+2, Stephan Hradek wrote:
I can't see a fundamental difference between my alias approach and
using IDs. Except that ID's tend to be unreadable.
--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy.rus...@gmail.com
--
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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [tw] Re: [TW5] preventing tiddler-links to break by using ids as reference that translate into titles
Hi Jeremy,
thank you for this clarification. I understand and support your deliberate
choice in this matter.
I am new to TW and my overall understanding is still developing :)
That said, I apologize for bothering you with my newbie-opinions or
questions, but from my understanding
it is possible to have more than one unique-field that identifies a
tiddler. Similar to SQL
where I can have several unique attributes in a table that each could be
used to identify a row.
If a new tiddler is created, the system only needs to ensure that the title
AND the id is unique.
From this point on, it is the decision of the user to reference the tiddler
by id or by title.
As written above, I have introduced this mechanism in my wiki and it works
well.
Providing a build-in alternative to a reference-by-title concept for those
who want it would be a nice
feature because links wouldn't break. Maybe it's not a common issue but I
found a threat on stackexchange
where a user had the same problem:
http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/22850/changing-the-name-of-a-tiddler-in-tiddlywiki-and-retain-the-references-pointing
In any case, I fully support your choice to use the title as unique
identifier and if TW internals
do not allow the introduction of such a parallel-concept then it is totally
fine. I think TW is
great and offers much flexibility either way!
So thank you for your work and your previous answers.
Greetings
Felix
On Monday, June 2, 2014 6:46:26 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
Hi Felix
By the way, is there any reason, why the tiddlers do not get a unique id
on creation time as a field value per default?
This would support people to create unbreakable references via ids,
without the previous effort to give each tiddler a unique id or creating a
custom button.
That's the unavoidable, perennial question referred to above. A simple
formulation is: do we use the title field as the identifier for a tiddler
the title field, or do we use a separate ID field. The two options
can't co-exist, we need to choose one. TiddlyWiki chooses the former on the
basis that is a more human formulation, and that it can trivially emulate
the ID approach. But that is done by using the title field as an ID, not by
introducing a new ID field. The reason is because of the need to enforce
uniqueness: we guarantee the uniqueness of titles, but not of other fields.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
Regards
Felix
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:02:33 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an
abstract GUID is a perennial one.
My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if
it suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler
by it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of
the link. Here's an example of a macro to do that:
\define link(guid)
$tiddler tiddler=$guid$$link$view field=name//$link/$
tiddler
\end
This is a link by guid link qqu99yie1
Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro
to be automatically substituted for links.
Best wishes
Jeremy.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers felixk...@hotmail.de
wrote:
Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a
non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me.
As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather
chose ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in
SQL autoincrement primary keys...
And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more
invisible as they have no semantic meaning.
However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a
really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title
of the link as a variable to use it in a local macro.
This way I could do something like
{{ 415241 | id }}
and put the filter in the macro instead of directly writing
{{{ [field:id[]!has[draft.of]first[]] }}}
that will make a nice shortcut...
On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30:38 PM UTC+2, Stephan Hradek wrote:
I can't see a fundamental difference between my alias approach and
using IDs. Except that ID's tend to be unreadable.
--
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+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com javascript:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
TiddlyWiki group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
