> > Mat wrote: >> >> .... AND, again, note that this little "injected scribble" is probably so >> special that it doesn't fulfill tiddler criteria. It will not be reused and >> totally belonged to the context. It is a technological limitation that >> forces us to store it as a separate tiddler. >> > > PMario: I think, you are probably right. It is a technical challenge, even > today, which imo is out of the scope of a browser based "mini software". >
Right. I think contextualising the issues in broader software function is a good way to come at this. > > It's the nature of a "text"-editor to be designed to create text ... only. > > Mixing *and inline editing* text and drawings once was introduced in > Microsoft products in 1990. For those of us, which are old enough using > those products, I just say: Object Linking and Embedding > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding> (OLE). .. > Which, from my point of view, was the same as "shooting in your own foot". > > Directly embedding 50+ screenshot images into a word ".doc" document, if > it worked at all, only worked on the PC it was created. .. > > Just to be sure. I'm talking about a time where computer main memory was > measured in 1-4 MegaByte and a "write once" *CD*-ROM costed 10+€s .. per > CD! > The main and cheap backup medium were many 31⁄2" Floppy-disk > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_disk>s with 1.44 MByte capacity. > ... > > Such an "embedding" document could easily add up to 100 MByte. > > On the other hand *linking* images, as used by products like FrameMaker > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_FrameMaker> 3.0 or 4.0 created 1 > file that was about 100 *k*Byte in size + size of 50+ single file gif's. > IMO the linking concept, for these type of projects, had major advantages, > over embedding. .. IMO that's still true. > Sort of. In professional tools like InDesign you can both Embed OR Link. If you embed bit images in a document it is at the highest resolution. Documents can become huge but are fully portable. If you link bit images then you typically set the render resolution first to "draft" resolution so you can work without having to render the full version. On final output you render the linked images into an output file, typically PDF, at the resolution of the destination media. Generally very high for high quality print, low for standard web, medium for modern high res screens. > So ... yes it is a technical challenge, which is probably a little bit out > of TWs scope. > Right. But the issue of "placement" (I.e. how the transclusions could be manipulated) is probably something that could be approached in TW. > > On the other hand TW can handle tiddler transclusions with ease!! See: > https://tiddlywiki.com/#Images%20in%20WikiText so we should be happy to > be able to use it that way. > Yes. I'll comment more later when I thought a bit more about it. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/63d770ff-6952-4356-9c6a-559726150bc9%40googlegroups.com.
