[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

> Of course you don't see it if you use the static version which seems to be > the one given by google search unfortunately. Maybe the warning > at the top of static pages should bring to the right tiddler and explain > the doc can be improved there. > Google search can't link to individual

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Yes I have being keen to change the static template to link to the interactive wiki for my own wikisite. Tony -- 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

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:45:52 PM UTC+2, TonyM wrote: > on Tiddlywiki.com edit a tiddler and you will see a link to contribute to > the docs. > This is new, isn't it? I already wanted to do that and I edited tiddler to see but I haven't see this nice explanation. This is great. Of

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

I haven't seen this answer which was exactly what I needed. Thanks. BTW there is also a page "Installing TiddlyWiki on Node.js" which is a copy of GettingStarted except it has labels. Very confusing. Of course none of these two pages are linked from the page "Using TiddlyWiki on Node.js" nor

Re: [tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

I just succeeded to export to a static web site but with the old option, I cannot do it with the new one. ~/node_modules/tiddlywiki/tiddlywiki.js --verbose --load mytiddly.html --rendertiddlers '[!is[system]]' $:/core/templates/static.tiddler.html static text/plain On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:57

Re: [tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Thanks for your answers, it seems I am not the only one confused with the doc (I exclude those who trust so much in the doc that they told me to look at pages I cited in my initial mail :) Since yesterday, I found out what is Node.js and that to install tiddlywiki (the program) I should first

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Yes, I had the same frustrating issue! Using Node.js to generate singular Tiddlys is not a beginner-friendly method (see an old post of mine here ). On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 10:52:29 PM UTC+10, David Gifford

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Folks, For those of you will the decade or so long experience with tiddlywiki you may recall that the google forums are one of tiddlywikis strengths because the policy has being ask and we will help. It does not demand you to search for your answer. I believe this approach should remain, but

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Group hug guys, group hug. https://youtu.be/mgmVOuLgFB0 -- 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

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

> > > If I'm looking for something about TiddlyWiki, and I think it's likely a > 3rd party resource, my second stop is David Gifford's TiddlyWiki Toolmap > . > The third stop SOMETIMES may be https://kookma.github.io/TW-Scripts/

Re: [tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

As a business analyst for the last 20+ years Expecting community documentation NEVER works, not in a business and def not in the tech community (it does work well among fandom, but... That's not the same). So what is needed, imho, is a committed team to address and collect documentation, and

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Mark S. Good practical post. My take on it: we need a consolidated search mechanism better honed to finding things over the major source materials. TT On Monday, 16 September 2019 16:08:40 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote: > > Not that I would disagree about the documentation, but a small bit of your >

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Not that I would disagree about the documentation, but a small bit of your problem was Google search. It lead you to a static page that limited your other search options. In the upper right hand portion of the page it was tagged "TiddlyWiki on Node.js" which was meant to tip you off to the

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

You are right, Mohammad but I often find it difficult to write the question. When I started using Tiddlywiki (classic) I had a good teacher, Måns. He told me, that when I was able to write the question I was not far from finding the answer myself. Often enough he is right. You are all right

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:23:59 AM UTC-7, Mohammad wrote: > > > > The difference is here real and kind people answer instead of robots! So > this is a benefit over Google assistant :-) > > *I'm sorry. I didn't understand the question. Here is a list of necromancers within a ten mile

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:10:12 PM UTC+4:30, un.o...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > I love TiddlyWiki but I hate its documentation. > > I feel the same! If it was not the very helpful and responsive and kind people of Tiddlywiki community I would give up years ago! I even think

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

David Gifford wrote > > > If it makes you feel better, I went through the same hunt that you did, a > couple years ago, thinking there had to be a way to export the entire wiki > as static hml files from the single file TiddlyWiki. I think I eventually > had to ask here, and was told it can

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Now, about documentation, in my case the problem is that Github is equally confusing to me. Branching? Cloning? I avoid it like the plague, and in my TiddlyWiki toolmap I only link to demos, not to Github, if I can avoid it. (I should mention that one or two others also update the toolmap, and

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Oops, sorry, didn't answer your question correctly. To export an entire TiddlyWiki file as a static site, you must do that in node.js. If it makes you feel better, I went through the same hunt that you did, a couple years ago, thinking there had to be a way to export the entire wiki as

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

TonyM We are not in argument, really. It is more that PEOPLE LIKE YOU *constantly document usage*. Well. But your efforts GO DOWN THE TOILET. Because a few days later how do we find them? That, I think is the central issue. That we are mad to believe that new users can grapple with this

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

To export a tiddler: 1. Click the down arrow at the top right of the tiddler. 2. From the dropdown menu, select 'export tiddler'. 3. From the second dropdown menu, select the format you wish to export the tiddler as. On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 4:40:12 AM UTC-5, un.o...@gmail.com wrote: >

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Tt? I don't think anyone should need to be a detective but its important to recognise the source of such material is community contributions. Otherwise we are in furious agreement. Tony -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

TonyM wrote: > > ask the community for help ... > Right. And ask them to give a searchable INDEX to find it. So we don't constantly re-create the wheel :-) TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

TonyM wrote: > > This is difficult when we look for something we do not understand because > until we do we are not competent enough to improve the documentation. > Yes. But its also because we don't provide easy access to supplementary documentation that does exist. So I think you are wrong

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

Hi, You are right, to use the command, you need node.js. https://tiddlywiki.com/#GettingStarted%20-%20Node.js shows how you get tiddlywiki to work with node.js. The explanation is for MAC and Linux. I am a little confused though. If you are happy using the single file tiddlywiki, why would

[tw5] Re: The documentation is bad

un.o...@gmail.com wrote: > > I love TiddlyWiki but I hate its documentation. > The docs use a very condensed style. Its understandable in that they would get too long, too prolix, otherwise. It is also, probably, partly, Jeremy's style of writing. *I* find it somewhat annoying too. Filter