Mario
Good point about Webdav. I set it up on IIS and it worked well. I belive its
available on other platforms.
As a technology do you know more about its availability and benefits?
Regards
Tony
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
PMario wrote:
>
> ... WebDav savers, which IMO are a little bit underestimated.
>
I agree. I think the key question I was thinking about when I started the
thread was only really about "is there one methodology?" That is: (a)
simple to understand and implement; (b) works in most every scenario
Jed Carty wrote:
>
> ... the workflow for single file wikis on Bob isn't too terribly far from
> being able to just open an html file from within bob and have the changes
> autosaved back to the single file wiki. It won't ever be as simple as just
> double clicking on the html file because there
Hi Tony,
I think you forgot about the WebDav savers, which IMO are a little bit
underestimated.
-mario
--
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 tiddlyw
Jed Carty wrote:
>
> ... From what I have seen bash scripting can do anything done in
> powershell so that shouldn't be a problem...
>
Good news!
Josiah
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop rec
TT wrote ...
> ... *the only issue I see is TIMING.* The downside of using an external
>> script to native TW methods on saving is that Restore is that you need to
>> POLL the Wiki often to keep contemporaneous. This may be slightly confusing
>> to end-users under some circumstances.
>
>
Mark
Jes an aside of your aside
>
> As a side note, the workflow for single file wikis on Bob isn't too
> terribly far from being able to just open an html file from within bob and
> have the changes autosaved back to the single file wiki. It won't ever be
> as simple as just double clicking on the
osx has bash with most of the common commands available, so bash scripting
on osx is almost identical to on linux. I think that there are some subtle
differences in how osx and linux handle file watchers but I don't remember
what they are so that may not affect this. From what I have seen bash
TonyM wrote:
>
> Whilst I have being a script kiddy with PowerShell I have a very high
> level of batch programming skills .bat and .cmd and have automated windows
> desktop and servers many times.
>
Right. Opens the possibility that Mark S.' script could be invoked from a
batch that does supp
Mark S. wrote:
>
> It needs something more catchy than the "restore" terminology. Maybe the
> "Phoenix", "dezombifier", or "nine-lives" process. Something to think about.
>
Lazarus?
Nine Lives / 9-Lives / *shortform: *9L ? Seems suitably catty for TW :-)?
Thoughts
Josiah
--
You received th
Thanks Gentlemen, mark and josiah for your considered responses.
I will read through this again, perhaps more than once and think deeply about
it. Like you both I would love for us to find nirvana for tiddlywiki saves.
Whilst I have being a script kiddy with PowerShell I have a very high level o
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:13:39 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>
> But it won't work if you save someplace not being monitored.
>
>>
>>- Can we build this to cater for every Operating system?
>>
>> Linux has a rich library of shell tools. I'm reasonably confident that
it's possible to
Ciao TonyM
I been playing with Mark S.' PowerShell solution
(https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/tMLfNs1K3JU/gkrGu-ubAQAJ).
My comments are based on experiments with that.
TonyM wrote:
>
> So we can say "this method allows you to open your TiddlyWiki from the
> "original file location"
Mark,
Please correct me if in the following words, I am incorrect. Answering the
questions as well please.
So we can say "this method allows you to open your TiddlyWiki from the
"original file location" (where ever you choose), it saves the TiddlyWiki
in the browsers "download" location, but
Mark,
I am not saying that. However if users can be easily confused, or server
alternatives simple to install I believe they can compete with such
solutions.
The default save mechanism where you must select the destination and
overwrite the same file, if your browser permits, is easy to loath
TonyM wrote:
>
> This approach accepts there needs to be an Browser piece for each
> platform.
>
Right. And maybe it might be better NOT to do that? IF there is a way its
avoidable? Having to individually support browsers one by one is a lot of
work.
Best wishes
Josiah
>
--
You received
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 6:31:40 PM UTC-7, TonyM wrote:
>> Meanwhile, a batch file with less than a hundred lines of code can
provide the features that you do need.
> If this means keeping the saved wikis under the browser this adds
complexity to the workings,
> more places for error a
This has been a very interesting thread.
One that went a way I never anticipated and led to astute comments &
discussion from folk who understand TW saving/restore issues well.
The ONE thing I take away from it that is I think significant is the
IMPLICIT idea TW (in reality) needs Chrome or Fir
Ciao Riz
Its good what you wrote. And I'm very grateful for what you have done. If
you have time to extend Timimi to other browsers it would be great! I just
don't see other programmers supporting you. Isn't it a lot of work alone?
This thread got slightly side-tracked into discussion of save/
Mark
thanks for the responce
>> 300 megs is becoming trivial for desktops today. Reboot requirement, I
>> have not observed this?
>>
>>
>>>
> Misses the point. TiddlyWiki used to be this light-weight, single file
> solution. 300 megs is not lightweight, even today.
>
>
>
TiddlyDesktop is
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 4:41:14 PM UTC-7, TonyM wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
>
> 300 megs is becoming trivial for desktops today. Reboot requirement, I
> have not observed this?
>
>
>>
Misses the point. TiddlyWiki used to be this light-weight, single file
solution. 300 megs is not lightweight, e
Mark,
I have a different view on a number of the items you responded too, however
my post was a little off topic in the first place I do not want to
perpetuate this too much.
> On SharePoint renaming a file to tiddlywiki.aspx uses any browser and can
>> save back (store in a webPages library f
Riz,
I think an approach to this with timimi on all browser platforms, with a
friendly installer for each so they look very similar is the best way to go
for single file wikis. The reason being Timimi treats the wikis just like
any other file that can also open in the browser.
This approach a
Let me clarify my comment. I did not want to promote an external solution in
any language, be it python or node or bash for this purpose. My point was, any
solution for single file TW5s that doesn't involve browser will have multiple
edge cases, restrictions and will be a short sighted solution.
Mark S. wrote:
>
> Doesn't work with Edge
>
Small footnote. Love it or loathe it, Edge is a an interesting browser in
its integration with its OS. One thing, is its recognition of vocal
commands is very good. Very good.
I see no reason its not on the same TW footing as Firefox and Chrome.
I ho
I just want to add one simple observation on Mark's comments.
I do NOT think its healthy we habituated ourselves to Chrome OR Firefox
talk.
TiddlyWiki should USE browsers, not be a Slave any specific one.
Who is Commander? TW or Browser?
Thoughts
Josiah
On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 15:59:00 UTC+
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 3:22:09 AM UTC-7, TonyM wrote:
> > Timimi on Firefox is set and forget - for single file wikis from any
> folder and save to any folder
>
Doesn't work with Edge, or Vivaldi, or Chrome.
> Bob.exe is very easy to use without trying to do anything special.
>
Doe
TonyM wrote:
>
>
Thanks for clarifying. Why do you focus on restore rather than save?
>
Good question.
Simply, Restore from Downloads looks like THE closest thing to a Global
Method.
It would work with any browser.
Josiah
A universal solution would be great, and anything is possible especi
Josiah,
Thanks for clarifying. Why do you focus on restore rather than save?
A universal solution would be great, and anything is possible especially with
skills and creativity. The issue with universal is it needs work throughout the
universe. Perhaps the top 3 to 5 browsers would go 99% of th
Riz wrote:
>
> Let us consider the possibilities.
>
> If we are looking for a solution external to browser, there is a couple of
> issues.
>
> First, TW5 does not store the save path anywhere in its body and rightly
> so. This means there is no way for any solution to know where to move the
>
Ciao TonyM
I appreciate your overview. Its accurate and useful.
BUT I was only meaning SINGLE FILE WIKI.
Concerning the specific issue ... well actually the thread went different
than I thought it might ;-) lol.
For the SPECIFIC issue I was mainly interested in was limited to exploring
whethe
Thanks Riz for your detailed response.
I add a few comments later. I need think on it a bit more to be fair.
But before I do comment I think its useful to say that what I (and maybe
Mark S.?) twigged is NOT the Save problem but, rather, we are dealing with
the RESURRECTION Problem (Mark can do
Some quick notes
Because I am not sure I understand this conversation. A bit off topic
perhaps - but real information.
1. In your browser such as FireFox (and others?) you can set "let me
choose the download location every time", When using the default download
saver drop your wiki i
Let us consider the possibilities.
If we are looking for a solution external to browser, there is a couple of
issues.
First, TW5 does not store the save path anywhere in its body and rightly so.
This means there is no way for any solution to know where to move the latest
TW5 file to. So it co
Repeat for email ...
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019 19:24:35 UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> 1 -- Android --- Quinoid (might be #2 if it had any competition)
>
> 2 -- Windows browser --- Firefox + Timmimi
>
> 3 -- Windows desktop --- TiddlyDesktop (could be #1 or #2 if it were
> slightly more like a
35 matches
Mail list logo
