My vote is in fanour of going into edit mode to alter contents. It seems logical, otherwise tw would turn into a word processor. I also sometimes love to use direct HTMl in tiddlers, so that also needs edit mode. Keep the edit mode.
About wysiwyg editor i think there is good one at: http://visualtw.ouvaton.org/VisualTW.html On Oct 6, 5:15 pm, wolfgang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > doesn't WYSIWYG mean 'What You See Is What You Get' > - and not WGIEM ie. 'Without Going Into Edit Mode'? > > Joking aside, Luminotes comes as an 8 MB installation and I haven't > used it since :-) > The single advantage of not having go into edit mode doesn't make up > for TiddlyWiki's portability, adaptability, etc, etc,.. > > Though when I first came to TW I was strongly interested into WYSIWYG > implementations too - now I see many more advantages in simple wiki > syntax and don't bother with html enabled wysiwyg anymore .. use my > imagination instead. > > It would be nice though, if the TW internal table rendering engine > would come closer to the swift rendering of html tables. However, that > swiftness comes from the browser's external rendering engine... > > > .. which for me at least implies a speed and > > cognitive shift cost. I still like to see the full power of TW where > > you can edit on the viewing page. > > Implementing instant wysiwyg would require something else than a wiki > syntax rendering machine - something like luminotes. And would > probably end up never used, as my luminotes installation now. > > However, technology is advancing fast and what do I know? > > Regards.. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
