[tw5] Re: Query -- Changing creation date in a human actionable way? -- #creationDate

2019-04-09 Thread @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Mark S. That was my feeling. Better manipulate the inbuilt system as primary if it gives all you need. Seems lightweight and doable. The input side was what my question was about. To do it in a reliable way--because I see issues if you don't change the dates accurately. Thanks for

[tw5] Re: Query -- Changing creation date in a human actionable way? -- #creationDate

2019-04-09 Thread 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 9:25:38 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > But IN PRINCIPAL never ever changing creation date seems a tad OTT. > > > I agree. The creation date field takes up at least 27 characters of space (JSON isn't a compact way of storing info). It makes sense to use it

[tw5] Re: Query -- Changing creation date in a human actionable way? -- #creationDate

2019-04-09 Thread @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao cari TonyM & Pmario In most ways I agree with you. The use case is simply doing it once for singular projects I define before end-user gets them. It deals with legacy. Further additions are contemporary. The main issue is doing it reliably. Not so easy. and on that I fully agree with

[tw5] Re: Query -- Changing creation date in a human actionable way? -- #creationDate

2019-04-08 Thread TonyM
Josiah, I concur with mario. Both created and modified can be used to drive a number of processes and systems and should not be played with as it compromises the wiki. Using a date picker or allowing time stamping a value into another date field can make this so easy. You can even add the

[tw5] Re: Query -- Changing creation date in a human actionable way? -- #creationDate

2019-04-08 Thread PMario
On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 9:58:27 AM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > I want to manipulate creation times so that filters will work to produce a > correct date ordering for a CV via filters in the simplest fashion. > hmmm, IMO a very bad idea. ... You should never touch the tiddler "created"