Folks, *Background*
I avoid polluting the tag name space by using fields whereever possible rather than tags, including alternative tag fields. I retain my tagging options for ad hoc relationships. I am only now becoming concerned that a pile of solutions I have, for which I have developed my own fieldname standards, may be polluting the fieldname space. That is I define so many fields, it could perhaps confuse users or designers. - I could make use of the core method to hide fields to reduce this impact - I could use a prefix for my various solutions fields, - But I think this is ugly, because you can make nice filters with english words eg fieldname[fieldvalue] or show-details[yes] rather than _show-details[yes] or psat-show-details[yes] - but many fieldnames set a standard I use for a given fieldname and I want them standardised. Only recently I discovered a way to include additional information within the text fields that are not visible so they can even replace fields. This method also provides a method to use the name multiple names eg: <!-- Reference: Some reference info Reference: Some more reference info --> A Small set of custom filters and macros help work with this. *Question?* So since I now have an additional method should I reduce my use of additional fields and make use of my discovery to reduce polluting the fieldname space? I would appreciate your view *Note: *A Common answer in tiddlywiki is don't bother, use as many as you want and if you get into trouble change it, does that apply here? Regards TonyM -- 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/e31a8b13-f8f3-408e-b4ec-a05e385101ea%40googlegroups.com.