Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[TW Tones]

Using a CDN like cloud flare made an otherwise almost unusable wiki fast, 
add a splash screen to ensure people wait for it to load, advertise they 
are loading the whole site for fast performance.

Now when distributing content consider sharing JSON packAges of tiddler, or 
via a library, then the user need only the delta after the first save.

Regards
Tony


On Sunday, 8 November 2020 03:35:28 UTC+11, Mark S. wrote:
>
> There's more than server storage size that's important.
>
> Imagine you were an instructor who wanted to distribute and receive lesson 
> plans via TW to remote students with limited data rate accounts. Having 
> 2megs overhead for each transfer would make the whole process expensive, in 
> addition to slow. 
>
> But, as they say, it is what it is. 
>

-- 
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/fb2f7669-3b75-4cc8-bc3b-ca77d12db12fo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[Atronoush]

Hi Mark,

On Saturday, November 7, 2020 at 8:05:28 PM UTC+3:30 Mark S. wrote:

> There's more than server storage size that's important.
>
> Imagine you were an instructor who wanted to distribute and receive lesson 
> plans via TW to remote students with limited data rate accounts. Having 
> 2megs overhead for each transfer would make the whole process expensive, in 
> addition to slow. 
>

This is a real case! I have seen our colleagues use Tiddlywiki like a Word 
document. A student reads few papers, prepares a summary, discussion and 
compares important results.
He/She uses links to original papers for example on Sciencedirect! In a 
course with few number of students (in that case 17 graduate students) and 
the customized TW they use has 3.2MB size. So, for every HMW the instructor 
receives around 55MB through email or university LMS, comment/grade them 
and return like 55MB again! A ten pages Word docx is around 100kB. So for 
this class one homework is 1700 kB versus 55MB!!

So, if we think of Tiddlywiki as a personal note taking on our thumb drive, 
or personal website on GitHub 10MB or more is okay to work on a rather old 
laptop with 2MB Ram. But if we think single empty.html as a flexible 
universal document then the size matters!

I understand a single file Tidllywiki has a lot of unique features I can 
not find in a Word document, may be this the penalty we pay! more 
flexibility, more feature but bulky .html.

--Mohammad
 

>
> But, as they say, it is what it is. 
>

-- 
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/71f81696-ac86-4840-aaf8-3b30ad065b0dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

There's more than server storage size that's important.

Imagine you were an instructor who wanted to distribute and receive lesson 
plans via TW to remote students with limited data rate accounts. Having 
2megs overhead for each transfer would make the whole process expensive, in 
addition to slow. 

But, as they say, it is what it is. 

-- 
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/123b872f-fc28-43a1-8fee-2c6590f82f32o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[TiddlyTweeter]

>
> TiddlyTweeter > suggested:
>
 

> I think a few tests showing the benefit of GZippery on this might help 
>> show a larger core is not, in itself, a major issue for most use cases.
>
>  
Jeremy Ruston replied:
 

> GZip is enabled for tiddlywiki.com, so an interesting test case is to 
> look at https://tiddlywiki.com/upgrade.html; it’s the largest html file 
> on tiddlywiki.com because it includes a copy of every 
> plugin/theme/language for upgrade purposes.
>
> Using the “Network” tab of developer tools, the HTML file shows as taking 
> 16.5MB on disc, but only 4.3MB when it is transmitted by the server in its 
> compressed form.
>

Ciao Jeremy

Good example! 

Basically proves the point that for online performance, particularly for 
the important *user experience of "load time"* , it is not core *size* per 
se that is often the issue. It is simply about knowing how to leverage 
server to optimally use commonly available methods for reduced bandwidth 
delivery.

Best wishes
TT

-- 
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/cc95e36a-8ce1-411f-ac6d-21f599750303o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi TT

> On 7 Nov 2020, at 09:53, TiddlyTweeter  wrote:
> 
> 
> Right. I think a few tests showing the benefit of GZippery on this might help 
> show a larger core is not, in itself, a major issue for most use cases.

GZip is enabled for tiddlywiki.com , so an interesting 
test case is to look at https://tiddlywiki.com/upgrade.html 
; it’s the largest html file on 
tiddlywiki.com  because it includes a copy of every 
plugin/theme/language for upgrade purposes.

Using the “Network” tab of developer tools, the HTML file shows as taking 
16.5MB on disc, but only 4.3MB when it is transmitted by the server in its 
compressed form.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

-- 
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/E4531871-BEF7-483E-8AE9-DC9ED000CA26%40gmail.com.

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[TiddlyTweeter]

Jeremy Ruston wrote:

(My emphasis)
 

> ... right now the goal for the core is for it to contain not the bare 
> minimum possible functionality, but rather the functionality that has the 
> *potential 
> to be universally useful*. That broader criteria means that the core 
> itself is sufficient for a lot of work with TiddlyWiki, *making the life 
> of users and developers a lot easier*. 
>

Practically I agree. It has been my experience in churning out work for 
quick purposes its got *a lot easier * as the core has expanded. It avoids 
having to manage a vast shopping list of plugins.

Of course the question of what "universally useful" (i.e. widely relevant) 
functions are can be argued over. But my overall impression is that choices 
over extensions of the core have been very well measured--if anything 
slightly too "conservative".


> A consideration ... is whether it really matters that the core gets big, 
> especially *now that we’re in a world where a simple news story weighs 
> 20MB.* There are valid concerns about slow networks but the best solution 
> there is to *set the server up with GZip compression* ...
>

Right. I think a few tests showing the benefit of GZippery on this might 
help show a larger core is not, in itself, a major issue for most use cases.

What performance issues I've had are have never been to do with core size 
per se; rather that have been about in-efficiency in some design decision I 
took (handling large numbers of tags being one of them; screen refresh 
implications another).

Best wishes
TT 

-- 
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/d16541cc-bfcb-445a-9016-0fb90157cee4o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[Mohammad]

Thank you Jeremy!

That is really good! I think 5.2.x will be an elegant new generation as I 
follow discussions, ideas and proposals on GitHub.
There are good experiences and huge amount of feedback in forum and GitHub 
on TW 5.1.xx.

Stay healthy!

Mohammad

p.s: I really like to have a set of clean and flexible filters! I think 
important core widgets like $list may need to be carefully evaluated and 
get proper improvement for a
simple and flexible scripting in TW 5.2.x



On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 10:06:52 PM UTC+3:30 jeremy...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Hi Mohammad
>
>  Many thanks for clarification! So, there are obstacles and limitations 
> for having a microkernel Tiddlywiki.
>
>
> Just factors that hadn’t been discussed so far, it’s a good discussion.
>
> I meant to add to my earlier reply that I do plan to do something similar 
> for v5.2.x in that I’d like to move obsolete and deprecated components into 
> an optional plugin. It won’t necessarily have a huge impact on the size of 
> the core, but it will make it simpler and easier to understand.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jeremy.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
> Mohammad
>
> On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 9:21:33 PM UTC+3:30 jeremy...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> The idea of stripping TiddlyWiki down to a microkernel and making 
>> everything be a plugin comes up fairly frequently, and seems to be an idea 
>> with some appeal.
>>
>> One factor that hasn’t been mentioned so far is that the microkernel 
>> architecture would make testing and support a good deal more complicated. 
>> Core developers and plugin authors would have to test against all the 
>> common combinations of core plugins. Every single support enquiry would 
>> have to be prefaced by a discussion to find out exactly what combination of 
>> plugins the user has.
>>
>> Of course, to some extent we have this problem already because we already 
>> have plugins. But right now the goal for the core is for it to contain not 
>> the bare minimum possible functionality, but rather the functionality that 
>> has the potential to be universally useful. That broader criteria means 
>> that the core itself is sufficient for a lot of work with TiddlyWiki, 
>> making the life of users and developers a lot easier. 
>>
>> A consideration that has already been mentioned is whether it really 
>> matters that the core gets big, especially now that we’re in a world where 
>> a simple news story weighs 20MB. There are valid concerns about slow 
>> networks but the best solution there is to set the server up with GZip 
>> compression because it will benefit the content in the wiki too.
>>
>> As to why TW5 is larger than TWC, it’s really just because TW5 has so 
>> much more functionality beyond the basic user experience that both systems 
>> share.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jeremy.
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2020, at 00:36, TW Tones  wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> As I understand it this is already possible. External Javascript.
>>
>> I also wonder if one could selectively remove code not used, however this 
>> would need an analysis process. And an exclusion on save, perhaps an 
>> alternate core plugin.
>>
>> The dynamic range of application of tiddlywiki would possibly be enhanced 
>> with a lower size however in todays world we most often have sufficient 
>> overheads that reduction has less benefit than being comprehensive or self 
>> documented. 
>>
>> Regards
>> Tony
>>
>> On Thursday, 5 November 2020 08:12:12 UTC+11, Mark S. wrote:
>>>
>>> If TW5 could be made to run like javascript, then you could separate the 
>>> core from the working files. So you could have a local core library which 
>>> all your tiddlywiki files could resource, without having to include them in 
>>> every download/upload/save.
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 11:00:21 PM UTC-8, Mohammad wrote:

 Tiddlywiki is rapidly improving and you can see great features in the 
 recent releases. 
 From 2.1.17+ amazing features have been added to Tiddlywiki! One 
 question is about the size of empty.html (the virgin Tiddlywiki). See the 
 below table

 Release   Size (kb)
 5.1.12   1820
 5.1.15   2025
 5.1.17   2033
 5.1.19   2153
 5.1.21   2235
 5.1.22   2197
 5.1.12   2282

 While I love the new features, but, how big a virgin Tiddlywiki  can 
 be? Assuming many users work with single file mode and using different 
 Tiddlywiki for different purposes, I think we should set a maximum size, 
 before going to have bigger empty.html


 Suggestions
 *A. Use official plugins*
 1. Keep the core as light as possible, go down to 1MB size (strip 
 everything extra)
 2. Put extra features in official plugins

 *B. Start a new generation *
 1.Release TW 5.2 with minimum size core (include only essential part)
 2. Leave all backward compatibility to Tiddlywiki 5.1.xx
 3. Stop developing 5.1.xx and only release bug fixes

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Mohammad

>  Many thanks for clarification! So, there are obstacles and limitations for 
> having a microkernel Tiddlywiki.

Just factors that hadn’t been discussed so far, it’s a good discussion.

I meant to add to my earlier reply that I do plan to do something similar for 
v5.2.x in that I’d like to move obsolete and deprecated components into an 
optional plugin. It won’t necessarily have a huge impact on the size of the 
core, but it will make it simpler and easier to understand.

Best wishes

Jeremy.


> 
> Best wishes
> Mohammad
> 
> On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 9:21:33 PM UTC+3:30 jeremy...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> The idea of stripping TiddlyWiki down to a microkernel and making everything 
> be a plugin comes up fairly frequently, and seems to be an idea with some 
> appeal.
> 
> One factor that hasn’t been mentioned so far is that the microkernel 
> architecture would make testing and support a good deal more complicated. 
> Core developers and plugin authors would have to test against all the common 
> combinations of core plugins. Every single support enquiry would have to be 
> prefaced by a discussion to find out exactly what combination of plugins the 
> user has.
> 
> Of course, to some extent we have this problem already because we already 
> have plugins. But right now the goal for the core is for it to contain not 
> the bare minimum possible functionality, but rather the functionality that 
> has the potential to be universally useful. That broader criteria means that 
> the core itself is sufficient for a lot of work with TiddlyWiki, making the 
> life of users and developers a lot easier. 
> 
> A consideration that has already been mentioned is whether it really matters 
> that the core gets big, especially now that we’re in a world where a simple 
> news story weighs 20MB. There are valid concerns about slow networks but the 
> best solution there is to set the server up with GZip compression because it 
> will benefit the content in the wiki too.
> 
> As to why TW5 is larger than TWC, it’s really just because TW5 has so much 
> more functionality beyond the basic user experience that both systems share.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Jeremy.
> 
> 
>> On 5 Nov 2020, at 00:36, TW Tones > > wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> As I understand it this is already possible. External Javascript.
>> 
>> I also wonder if one could selectively remove code not used, however this 
>> would need an analysis process. And an exclusion on save, perhaps an 
>> alternate core plugin.
>> 
>> The dynamic range of application of tiddlywiki would possibly be enhanced 
>> with a lower size however in todays world we most often have sufficient 
>> overheads that reduction has less benefit than being comprehensive or self 
>> documented. 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Tony
>> 
>> On Thursday, 5 November 2020 08:12:12 UTC+11, Mark S. wrote:
>> If TW5 could be made to run like javascript, then you could separate the 
>> core from the working files. So you could have a local core library which 
>> all your tiddlywiki files could resource, without having to include them in 
>> every download/upload/save.
>> 
>> On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 11:00:21 PM UTC-8, Mohammad wrote:
>> Tiddlywiki is rapidly improving and you can see great features in the recent 
>> releases. 
>> From 2.1.17+ amazing features have been added to Tiddlywiki! One question is 
>> about the size of empty.html (the virgin Tiddlywiki). See the below table
>> 
>> Release   Size (kb)
>> 5.1.12   1820
>> 5.1.15   2025
>> 5.1.17   2033
>> 5.1.19   2153
>> 5.1.21   2235
>> 5.1.22   2197
>> 5.1.12   2282
>> 
>> While I love the new features, but, how big a virgin Tiddlywiki  can be? 
>> Assuming many users work with single file mode and using different 
>> Tiddlywiki for different purposes, I think we should set a maximum size, 
>> before going to have bigger empty.html
>> 
>> 
>> Suggestions
>> A. Use official plugins
>> 1. Keep the core as light as possible, go down to 1MB size (strip everything 
>> extra)
>> 2. Put extra features in official plugins
>> 
>> B. Start a new generation 
>> 1.Release TW 5.2 with minimum size core (include only essential part)
>> 2. Leave all backward compatibility to Tiddlywiki 5.1.xx
>> 3. Stop developing 5.1.xx and only release bug fixes
>> 
>> If Jeremy can go for a new generation of Tiddlywiki, I may also suggest
>> 1. Sweep the core from all duplicated codes and those retained backward 
>> compatibility and leave them for 5.1.xx
>> 2. Rethink about filters and implement using the more versatile approach, 
>> like those are going on in GitHub (e.g. Saq proposal for multi input filters)
>> 3. Use flexible switchable page layout
>> 4. Think for a cleaner scripting (remove all duplication, improved grammar, 
>> ... there is a lot of good discussions in the forum and GitHub)
>> 5. Think of a new name (re-branding)
>> 6. ...
>> 
>> I am sure people can suggest more here
>> 
>> 
>> Best wishes

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[Mohammad]

Hi Jeremy,

 Many thanks for clarification! So, there are obstacles and limitations for 
having a microkernel Tiddlywiki.

Best wishes
Mohammad

On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 9:21:33 PM UTC+3:30 jeremy...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> The idea of stripping TiddlyWiki down to a microkernel and making 
> everything be a plugin comes up fairly frequently, and seems to be an idea 
> with some appeal.
>
> One factor that hasn’t been mentioned so far is that the microkernel 
> architecture would make testing and support a good deal more complicated. 
> Core developers and plugin authors would have to test against all the 
> common combinations of core plugins. Every single support enquiry would 
> have to be prefaced by a discussion to find out exactly what combination of 
> plugins the user has.
>
> Of course, to some extent we have this problem already because we already 
> have plugins. But right now the goal for the core is for it to contain not 
> the bare minimum possible functionality, but rather the functionality that 
> has the potential to be universally useful. That broader criteria means 
> that the core itself is sufficient for a lot of work with TiddlyWiki, 
> making the life of users and developers a lot easier. 
>
> A consideration that has already been mentioned is whether it really 
> matters that the core gets big, especially now that we’re in a world where 
> a simple news story weighs 20MB. There are valid concerns about slow 
> networks but the best solution there is to set the server up with GZip 
> compression because it will benefit the content in the wiki too.
>
> As to why TW5 is larger than TWC, it’s really just because TW5 has so much 
> more functionality beyond the basic user experience that both systems share.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jeremy.
>
> On 5 Nov 2020, at 00:36, TW Tones  wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> As I understand it this is already possible. External Javascript.
>
> I also wonder if one could selectively remove code not used, however this 
> would need an analysis process. And an exclusion on save, perhaps an 
> alternate core plugin.
>
> The dynamic range of application of tiddlywiki would possibly be enhanced 
> with a lower size however in todays world we most often have sufficient 
> overheads that reduction has less benefit than being comprehensive or self 
> documented. 
>
> Regards
> Tony
>
> On Thursday, 5 November 2020 08:12:12 UTC+11, Mark S. wrote:
>>
>> If TW5 could be made to run like javascript, then you could separate the 
>> core from the working files. So you could have a local core library which 
>> all your tiddlywiki files could resource, without having to include them in 
>> every download/upload/save.
>>
>> On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 11:00:21 PM UTC-8, Mohammad wrote:
>>>
>>> Tiddlywiki is rapidly improving and you can see great features in the 
>>> recent releases. 
>>> From 2.1.17+ amazing features have been added to Tiddlywiki! One 
>>> question is about the size of empty.html (the virgin Tiddlywiki). See the 
>>> below table
>>>
>>> Release   Size (kb)
>>> 5.1.12   1820
>>> 5.1.15   2025
>>> 5.1.17   2033
>>> 5.1.19   2153
>>> 5.1.21   2235
>>> 5.1.22   2197
>>> 5.1.12   2282
>>>
>>> While I love the new features, but, how big a virgin Tiddlywiki  can be? 
>>> Assuming many users work with single file mode and using different 
>>> Tiddlywiki for different purposes, I think we should set a maximum size, 
>>> before going to have bigger empty.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Suggestions
>>> *A. Use official plugins*
>>> 1. Keep the core as light as possible, go down to 1MB size (strip 
>>> everything extra)
>>> 2. Put extra features in official plugins
>>>
>>> *B. Start a new generation *
>>> 1.Release TW 5.2 with minimum size core (include only essential part)
>>> 2. Leave all backward compatibility to Tiddlywiki 5.1.xx
>>> 3. Stop developing 5.1.xx and only release bug fixes
>>>
>>> If Jeremy can go for a new generation of Tiddlywiki, I may also suggest
>>> 1. Sweep the core from all duplicated codes and those retained backward 
>>> compatibility and leave them for 5.1.xx
>>> 2. Rethink about filters and implement using the more versatile 
>>> approach, like those are going on in GitHub (e.g. Saq proposal for multi 
>>> input filters)
>>> 3. Use flexible switchable page layout
>>> 4. Think for a cleaner scripting (remove all duplication, improved 
>>> grammar, ... there is a lot of good discussions in the forum and GitHub)
>>> 5. Think of a new name (re-branding)
>>> 6. ...
>>>
>>> I am sure people can suggest more here
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>> Mohammad
>>>
>>> TW-Scripts  codes, macros, and 
>>> solutions in Tiddlywiki
>>> TW-Commander  bulk operations 
>>> on tiddlers
>>> TW-Trashbin  a Tiddlywiki 
>>> trashbin tool
>>> TW-Favorites  a favorites and 
>>> bookmarking tool
>>> TW-Todolist 

Re: [tw5] Tiddlywiki Empty: The size empty.html

[Jeremy Ruston]

The idea of stripping TiddlyWiki down to a microkernel and making everything be 
a plugin comes up fairly frequently, and seems to be an idea with some appeal.

One factor that hasn’t been mentioned so far is that the microkernel 
architecture would make testing and support a good deal more complicated. Core 
developers and plugin authors would have to test against all the common 
combinations of core plugins. Every single support enquiry would have to be 
prefaced by a discussion to find out exactly what combination of plugins the 
user has.

Of course, to some extent we have this problem already because we already have 
plugins. But right now the goal for the core is for it to contain not the bare 
minimum possible functionality, but rather the functionality that has the 
potential to be universally useful. That broader criteria means that the core 
itself is sufficient for a lot of work with TiddlyWiki, making the life of 
users and developers a lot easier. 

A consideration that has already been mentioned is whether it really matters 
that the core gets big, especially now that we’re in a world where a simple 
news story weighs 20MB. There are valid concerns about slow networks but the 
best solution there is to set the server up with GZip compression because it 
will benefit the content in the wiki too.

As to why TW5 is larger than TWC, it’s really just because TW5 has so much more 
functionality beyond the basic user experience that both systems share.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

> On 5 Nov 2020, at 00:36, TW Tones  wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> As I understand it this is already possible. External Javascript.
> 
> I also wonder if one could selectively remove code not used, however this 
> would need an analysis process. And an exclusion on save, perhaps an 
> alternate core plugin.
> 
> The dynamic range of application of tiddlywiki would possibly be enhanced 
> with a lower size however in todays world we most often have sufficient 
> overheads that reduction has less benefit than being comprehensive or self 
> documented. 
> 
> Regards
> Tony
> 
> On Thursday, 5 November 2020 08:12:12 UTC+11, Mark S. wrote:
> If TW5 could be made to run like javascript, then you could separate the core 
> from the working files. So you could have a local core library which all your 
> tiddlywiki files could resource, without having to include them in every 
> download/upload/save.
> 
> On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 11:00:21 PM UTC-8, Mohammad wrote:
> Tiddlywiki is rapidly improving and you can see great features in the recent 
> releases. 
> From 2.1.17+ amazing features have been added to Tiddlywiki! One question is 
> about the size of empty.html (the virgin Tiddlywiki). See the below table
> 
> Release   Size (kb)
> 5.1.12   1820
> 5.1.15   2025
> 5.1.17   2033
> 5.1.19   2153
> 5.1.21   2235
> 5.1.22   2197
> 5.1.12   2282
> 
> While I love the new features, but, how big a virgin Tiddlywiki  can be? 
> Assuming many users work with single file mode and using different Tiddlywiki 
> for different purposes, I think we should set a maximum size, before going to 
> have bigger empty.html
> 
> 
> Suggestions
> A. Use official plugins
> 1. Keep the core as light as possible, go down to 1MB size (strip everything 
> extra)
> 2. Put extra features in official plugins
> 
> B. Start a new generation 
> 1.Release TW 5.2 with minimum size core (include only essential part)
> 2. Leave all backward compatibility to Tiddlywiki 5.1.xx
> 3. Stop developing 5.1.xx and only release bug fixes
> 
> If Jeremy can go for a new generation of Tiddlywiki, I may also suggest
> 1. Sweep the core from all duplicated codes and those retained backward 
> compatibility and leave them for 5.1.xx
> 2. Rethink about filters and implement using the more versatile approach, 
> like those are going on in GitHub (e.g. Saq proposal for multi input filters)
> 3. Use flexible switchable page layout
> 4. Think for a cleaner scripting (remove all duplication, improved grammar, 
> ... there is a lot of good discussions in the forum and GitHub)
> 5. Think of a new name (re-branding)
> 6. ...
> 
> I am sure people can suggest more here
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> Mohammad
> 
> TW-Scripts  codes, macros, and 
> solutions in Tiddlywiki
> TW-Commander  bulk operations on 
> tiddlers
> TW-Trashbin  a Tiddlywiki trashbin tool
> TW-Favorites  a favorites and 
> bookmarking tool
> TW-Todolist  organize, prioritize, and 
> plan your work
> 
> https://github.com/kookma 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
>