[tw] Re: javascript help to cancel code for printing
Works fine ! (Had to check some changes I've done in the StorySaverPlugin as my default tag is livre and not story). Again, many thanks, dear Eric... PS : I encourage anyone to support the TW developpers... as TW is, above all and according to me, a rare (if not unique) software which can be turned into a very personal one thanks to them). -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Optional multiple tag fields (@Jeremy)
In a prevous threadhttps://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/tiddlywiki/MaPEEqtavoE, I proposed the idea with optional multiple tag fields for TW5 and Jeremy answered: Interesting. It sounds as though you are envisaging multiple fields on a tiddler each with the behaviour of the existing 'tags' field, and the ability to specify which tags field is used for a given operation. I think that's possible but I'd be keen to make sure that I understand your intended use cases better: can you give me a few examples of operations that would be easier to accomplish with this feature? Ok, this has been an effort to write and I fear it'll be an effort to read but perhaps amusing. My problem is that I'm not a programmer so I'm probably using wrong terminology and have quite possibly misunderstood a thing or two about how TW is built up. However, I bring the perspective of an experienced TW user who has enjoyed but struggled with TW for a few years now. Maybe I (and surely many others here) can be seen as a link between you TW wizards and average Joes who justs want a good insert purpose of TW but who gets scared off when he realizes that TW without coding barely is possible and that he really is dependent on the generosity of the board members explaining stuff all the time. So, the central theme of my post here is about simplifying things for average Joe, one concept being the suggestion for optional multiple tag fields / tag categories. So, operation where optional multiple tag fields would simplify. For sake of explanation we have a TW on Tolkien stuff. Tiddler Frodo can have tags like the following: ring bearer, hobbit, protagonist, Elijah Woods, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, @Jeremy, and N more tags - i.e any association the author (or a group of people!) considers relevant. Thus, tags are plenty, sprawly and arbitrary - though all quite relevant and realistic. Example operation: Transclude the book titles. They are indeed among the tags but to get that info out you need to seek up which of the tags that in turn are tagged, say, book. Perhaps not difficult for a coder like yourself but I think few non-coders would know what to do. Multiple tag categories would in this example omit the need to search all together (assuming tiddler Frodo has tagcategory books). The search was replaced by (optional) manual work at the time of adding the tags (or later). Note also that there need be no actual book tiddlers for this in contrast to current solution that requires book tiddlers tagged 'book'. More complex and general problem (still quite realistic): List all characters of books (ie characters tagged with book names). Each bookname is tagged 'book'. You pretty much have to be a programmer to solve this. A merely experienced user might use fET, but if the number of books are arbitrary (i.e can't be hard coded) this case is actually not possible to solve with fET without adding special code. With tag category book in each character tiddler, a transclusion would be simple. While you asked specifically for operations that simplify and the above are only one or two examples, the following are mostly not operations but I belive they do illustrate situations where (optional) multiple tag fields are beneficial for non-coders: Using many(!) tags is problematic in current TW and problems increase with the number of tags. But if TW is to fit around your brain then just like some subjects in your brain has many associations, so do some tiddlers require many tags. It is a limitation to feel that I'd better not. One specific problem is (was?) slowness as a consequence of many tags, especially for various searches that have to scan all tiddlers and all tags. Categories of tags could maybe smoothen this. Further, regular databases often have many, many attributes and values. Not incidentally, the user friendly way to add an item in a database is typically a form(!). A tiddler with (optional) tag categories would not be all unlike a form with attributes and values. I'm not sure pure programmers are fond of forms but it is not a coincidence that many user friendly databases has this view for adding and presenting information. It's even more problematic with plenty *and *sprawly tags. Eg Tobias TagSearch plugin http://tobibeer.tiddlyspace.com/#TagSearch shows such a 'sprawl' and how categorization solves it. Prio tags here and task tags over there. Not to mention public tags for visitors here and private tags there... ...and optional tag category fields would 'operationally' open up for commands in eg viewtemplate to don't display tag field named 'unofficial'. Currently you must tag each individual unofficial tag with excludeLists (wich also forces you to turn mere tags into tiddlers). But excludeLists is a specific example. Operations can be of any type on category fields. Apropo that tagging tags forces you to turn them into tiddlers; when
Re: [tw] Optional multiple tag fields (@Jeremy)
On May 17, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Mat wrote: So, operation where optional multiple tag fields would simplify. For sake of explanation we have a TW on Tolkien stuff. Tiddler Frodo can have tags like the following: ring bearer, hobbit, protagonist, Elijah Woods, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, @Jeremy, and N more tags - i.e any association the author (or a group of people!) considers relevant. Thus, tags are plenty, sprawly and arbitrary - though all quite relevant and realistic. Using many(!) tags is problematic in current TW and problems increase with the number of tags. But if TW is to fit around your brain then just like some subjects in your brain has many associations, so do some tiddlers require many tags. It is a limitation to feel that I'd better not. One specific problem is (was?) slowness as a consequence of many tags, especially for various searches that have to scan all tiddlers and all tags. Categories of tags could maybe smoothen this. I may be off-base here---my immediate reaction when I started reading was to say what I'm going to say, but I kept thinking, We'll maybe he'll eventually get to something that that would not be relevant to---but tags are not magic. Tags don't organize things. Human beings organize things. And they have to organize tags, too. I'm suspecting---and I don't mean to give offense here, just guessing at what's going on---that you're not putting much thought into your tagging---into developing a tagging *system.* To precisely that end I have found taggly tagging to be *extremely* helpful. As you may know, in taggly tagging, since all tags are tiddlers anyway, tags can be tagged, too. That allows you to put your tags into a hierarchical structure. Which I suspect would in time take care of the problem you're experiencing, which, for all the words you put into describing it, I take to be simply the problem of many tags. I have found the combination of tw and tt *extremely* helpful in organizing my thinking about what I can assure you are extremely complicated subjects. The really cool thing is that you do not have to have your structure set up in advance. It can evolve as your thinking evolves. So you just start with whatever categories seem most appropriate initially. As your understanding of the subject develops, the tags you started with are likely to come to seem inadequate. Of course you will need additional tags, but some early ones may need to be revised. And tags can be edited! Maybe some will need to be renamed. Or maybe several can be grouped together under a common tag. As you continue the tagging structure will get clearer and your use of tags more discriminating. But it can continue evolving indefinitely. I use the tw treeview blackicity tw developed by Morris Gray. I think I added tt to it. With it I have four ways to locate a tiddler---by tags, in the tree structure---which is itself a graphical representation of the tagging structure---in the time line and/or alphabetical list in the right hand column, or by searching. And as in a standard tw, an open tag tiddler will display a list of all the tiddlers tagged with the tag. Lots of ways to find tiddlers. Lots of ways represent the structure of your tags. Lots of support for thinking about complex topics. Again, I may have misunderstood your problem completely. I hope not and I hope this helps. [Maybe *it* will just confuse you more.] Regards, -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA eew...@bellsouth.net The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence. - Charles Bukowski -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Upgrading from 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 to 2.7.1 - successful method notes
Upgrading from 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 to 2.7.1 - successful method notes Greetings all - Thanks so much for all the great work from so many that made TW the main class page of all my classes. I recently found I'd not updated in a while and it might not work. I have at least one TW for each class. I see others here had that problem, so I'm making a new post in hopes my notes may help others. I recently upgraded about 20 TWs from 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 to 2.7.1 Went through some hoops - took notes so I can remember when I find more to upgrade - here they are, YMMV, hope this helps: tiddly wiki upgrade notes macbook pro 2011 current OS FF v12 ** Seems core upgrades or tiddler imports may not work unless both TWs are at root level, or only 1 folder in, and in same folder. Many of my TWs are 6 folders deep - that could be it. I've seen this previously with upgrades/imports of other versions, so I'm working at desktop level here. test - 6.2 6.3 won’t upgrade directly to 2.7.1 - 2.7.1 won't import from 2.6.2 or 3 - got the v 2.6.3 2.6.4 from TW archive - got 6.2 to export (using import) to 6.3, then import to 6.4 in the same folder at root level - would /not/ import to 2.6.5 hmmm - BUT 2.6.4 upgraded to 2.7.1 when in the same folder at root level - upgraded TW tested ok - discovered I can import to 2.6.4 directly and skip one step - tested with 2.6.2 and 2.6.1 TWs direct to 2.6.4 end test - current upgrade method: (worked with versions as far back as 2.6.1) 1 copy old file to root folder 2 put copy of 264 next to it 3 import to 264 from old file 4 then upgrade core of 264 to 271 and rename 5 move back to home folder, make a copy as backup, keep original file in case (belt and suspenders) 6 test Cheers - John Gonder -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Re: Upgrading from 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 to 2.7.1 - successful method notes
On May 17, 12:28 pm, packetlevel jsgon...@gmail.com wrote: Upgrading from 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 to 2.7.1 - successful method notes Please see this post, in which I explain how to perform manual upgrades of the TWCore, **without importing/exporting tiddlers** https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki/msg/ea1d63d05c91f54f enjoy, -e Eric Shulman TiddlyWiki Classic Lead Developer TiddlyTools / ELS Design Studios HELP ME TO HELP YOU - MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO MY TIP JAR... http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#Donations Professional TiddlyWiki Consulting Services... Analysis, Design, and Custom Solutions: http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#Contact -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [tw] Optional multiple tag fields (@Jeremy)
On May 17, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Mat wrote: Tagglytagging and treeview - I love them both and do use them extensively. They are key 'features' in most of my TW's. Glad to hear you have found them useful, too, Mat. And I fully agree with your starting comment that human beings organize things [not tags] and that my proposal would (optionally) force thought into tagging. But while taggly and treeview do organize tags, they don't address the the issues that I bring up which is more about managing tags and, particularly, not being forced to learn code operations to do this. This is an area in which I think taste and work habits may enter, not inappropriately, into our judgments about what makes for efficiency in software. I personally find taggly tagging sufficient for managing tags, but then managing tags may mean something different to me than it does to you. My overall hope is that TW would be easier to user for laymen (non-coders). Not everyone is a layman, especially not here, which is why I suggest this as an optional feature. That was one part of your post that I didn't comment on---tw's unfriendliness to non-coding users. I am fortunate that I got a lot of help from the coders here and gradually developed a tw setup that suits most of my needs very efficiently. But I must have had tw for a couple years before I even began to get a faint clue about how I make meaningful use of it, and it was quite a while, and took a lot of then-patient hand-holding, for me to get to a place where it was actually useful. TW is extremely versatile, and for that reason very powerful. But for that reason exploiting any of its seemingly innumerable capabilities can require more than a little skill. So some of the difficulty for non-coders is inherent. But it could be a lot easier than it is. In fact, there has been almost no effort to develop the kind of documentation that could help non-coding users get to a level modest competence with tw. BTW, do you have any thoughts on the closely related issue I describe? Ie that tags could be field arrays instead so that you don't have to deal with several concepts and learn specific operations for them? No I don't. My immediate reaction is that field arrays sounds kind of databasey, and I have never thought databases might be helpful in the way I described tw with tt being helpful to me. Rather than allowing structure to evolve organically with one's thinking about a subject, as I understand them databases pretty much require you to have the structure in place before you start using them. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA eew...@bellsouth.net You keep on learning and learning, and pretty soon you learn something no one has learned before. - Richard Feynman -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Re: How to upgrade TWClassic manually
Right - have used that in the past, and kinda forgot about it - But - I really was curious about the step by step import and seeing which versions might of might not import, anyway - science is fun. Thanks - Now I have to search here about getting the singlepagemodeplugin to work - not being much of a programmer myself. Cheers - John Gonder -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Display only text containing search results
Hello, i use TW daily and make a new Tiddler (or more) a day. What i would like is to do a search through all my tiddlers and only display the text (lines) with the keywords i search for instead of the whole tiddler. Like this: TiddlerToday [keyword1] text text text text text words words words [keyword1] [keyword2] text other text other words and text etc more text more words and even more words [keyword2] So i would like to search for [keyword1] and then get the one line between the [keyword1] and in case of [keyword2] i would like to have the 2 lines (or 3 or four in other cases) between that [keyword2] displayed and not the whole TiddlerToday text. Is that possible? Thanks! Ray -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Re: Display only text containing search results
i use TW daily and make a new Tiddler (or more) a day. What i would like is to do a search through all my tiddlers and only display the text (lines) with the keywords i search for instead of the whole tiddler. Is that possible? Try this: http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#TiddlyGrep It's not very fancy... but it might be a good fit... enjoy, -e Eric Shulman TiddlyTools / ELS Design Studios HELP ME TO HELP YOU - MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO MY TIP JAR... http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#Donations Professional TiddlyWiki Consulting Services... Analysis, Design, and Custom Solutions: http://www.TiddlyTools.com/#Contact -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[tw] Re: conflict FoldHeadings + EditSection
I was wondering if anyone knew if there had been any progresses on this issue? I really like using the folding headings plugin and now that I've found the Editsection plugin I find myself wanting to use it for nearly everything... On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:07:36 AM UTC-7, Arc Acorn wrote: Anyone know if there's an easy way to get the FoldHeadingsPlugin * EditSectionPlugin ** to play nicely with one another? * http://www.tiddlytools.com/#FoldHeadingsPlugin ** http://www.tiddlytools.com/#EditSectionPlugin It seems that anytime a header is fordable it's path gets messed up when the editSections macro is used. e.g: You the section path: FoldHeadingsPlugin##more... Revisions Everything works fine though for manually entered setups e.g: editSection ##Revisions gives you the right section path: FoldHeadingsPlugin##Revisions -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
