MarkS, I understand what you mean and you are right that the same field may contain completely different data.
*Having to* include all that meta data for every tiddler would bloat TW > even more, which already has ~100 bytes of overhead per tiddler. I imagine the template is *optional*: for example, it would be defined for the "tags" (<<tag>>) field and also for the "links" (<$link/>), but for example the "description" field would not need a definition, it would appear as plain text. The user would have the option of defining a template for the fields that are important and uniformly managed (for example, if you made a family tree wiki, the "gender" field could get a template that contains the gender icon). If you mean just for key fields like "list", I think anyone who had read > the documentation to find out the meaning of "field-type" would also have > already read the documentation to find out that "list" is a special field. > So the ultimate answer would be to make the documentation more engaging. And what if you want to use additional fields like the list? A list for the software platforms (even a template with an operating system icon), another list for programming languages, and a third for categories. What's nice about TiddlyWiki is that you can implement your own ideas because it's extremely flexible, you can hack nearly everything. "Fields are first class citizens" - why shouldn't they be treated flexibly? -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1b7bfa83-c7bb-4f3e-8a78-6fa28be2b4f2%40googlegroups.com.
