Ciao Tony, tx. Good to have a challenge! It got clear its pragmatically an issue for dates prior to 1899. So I will have to add a field for older works.
I'm still not bothered for anything after that on creation date. I don't see the problem. Probably my laziness to never do anything a different way IF you can do it with existing tools. Best wishes TT On Monday, 24 February 2020 23:20:08 UTC+1, TonyM wrote: > > TT, > > I do which to express a different view point in the sprite of > collaborative diversity. > > Thanks for your concern. But I don't think it is an issue in the >> particular use case. E.g. excerpts of scripts written in 1957. Works fine. >> That dating identifies them well without need of an additional field. >> > > See my most recent post why I think it is a problem > I am happy to help with you making use of an additional field. > > >> User created Tiddler dating would work as normal. I can't see a problem? >> > > Perhaps you could not see the problem, thus I respectfully suggest their > is. > >> >> In any case, I intended the OP to be about better understanding the >> limits on dates in TW. I'm interested in that. >> >>> >>>> > This is precisely what I am suggesting , the limits, and the limits or a > de facto standard should in my view not use the system date/and time for > something they are not. > > Lets import some great date handling libraries and make it easy to develop > and use such dates. For example the mear existence of a "historical" date > in a tiddler already provides information that is for historical > information which enriches the solution rather than degrade the solution. > > Regards > Tony > -- 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/6df18adc-5bf3-4be6-9a59-6d1342b98e3e%40googlegroups.com.
