Mark, I agree with what you are saying in part, but for me until now I have treated TiddlyWiki as a platform. Rather than trying to build solutions I have being refining my tools and code patterns. My interest is a rapid development environment, but if I am to provide a fully featured solution similar to your list (I have a long list of ideas too) I want the platform refined. So in this case I may be treating it more horizontally (if I have that word right).
This thread raises the question about do we help tiddlywiki do what other solutions do?, I say yes, do we let it integrate or customise solutions for special use cases (I say yes as well) but I do see value in not using tiddlywiki for everything, if someone has a better niche solution, at least if that neich solution is open source and to data transfer. I feel a little more focus on interapplication transfers, automation, integration is also a good first step. Ultimately Tiddlywiki as a platform will most likely be the best for solutions as you say not well served by existing applications or taking those applications data to a next level interface or customisation. I wonder if we should get collaborative projects going perhaps on github where the community works together to build some of these application editions, so we can build a "best of breed" editions. As a community we are not producing many of these whole editions that novices can use out of the box. I am as much to blame as anyone, building my private bespoke solutions and developing the platform and capabilities, rather than finished solutions with which to promote tiddlywiki. I hope to play with Zettlr and its integration with Tiddlywiki. Regards Tony On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 3:22:59 PM UTC+11, Mark S. wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > I guess my thinking is that the best use of TW isn't in horizontal > applications, but vertical. That is, there are certain topics that > thousands of people are interested in. And thanks to that interest, there > are already good applications. In those situations, TW would be, at best, > an "also ran." But there are lots of niche applications where TW could > shine. Unfortunately, by virtue of being a niche, there is also less > interest to begin with. The trick is to find those areas of interest which > are important and useful, but not being served well by existing > applications. > > Various ideas > > * Nutrition tracking > * TW versions of important books (e.g. Bible, Shakespeare) > * Dictionaries > * Garden planning > * Trip packing lists > * Grocery List > * Audio book Manager > * Work time log > > > On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 4:17:38 PM UTC-7, TonyM wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> My thoughts here, >> >> On the subject of replicating the methods in other apps. I agree with >> Marks suggestion why not make use of another app when is fit for purpose. >> Zettler is also open source and free and offers content exportability. If >> others are maintaining this for a particular function I do not think we >> should "undermine it" however sometimes we want to integrate the features >> into tiddlywiki so showing ways to replicate some of the features is >> helpful. In this case I think most of the features are already possible in >> tiddlywiki. >> >> However I think our first thought should be to developing the tools to >> import and export from such a tool so that people can choose the tool that >> best suits and freely interchange content. This is not unlike one may do >> between to different TiddlyWikis anyway. Just as if someone here did a >> custom tiddlywiki that I liked to use I would not necessarily replicate it >> in my own wiki but make use of the free interchange of content, so can we >> do this with third party specialist solutions as well. >> >> For example I hope to provide a mechanism for .cal .ics and other files >> to be dropped into tiddlywiki and made use of, this would be a preferable >> first step, over trying to replicate Gmail or Outlook functionality in >> tiddlywiki. >> >> In short rather than cannibalize other free and open source apps build >> the integration and where appropriate build the matching features as >> components. If it is compelling, in time, a TiddlyWiki edition/plugin may >> arise, but I don't think it should be the first reaction (not saying it was) >> >> Regards >> Tony >> >> >> On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 6:18:16 AM UTC+11, Mohammad wrote: >>> >>> Josiah, >>> >>> In this area of academic quality tools, and similar to TW, I also like >>> to name these two: >>> >>> - https://academicpages.github.io/ >>> - https://mmistakes.github.io/minimal-mistakes/ >>> >>> In reality the first was built on top of the second! >>> >>> Simplicity, clarity, short learning curve and flexibility are among most >>> notable features of these tool! >>> >>> I like to learn from them and see how I can adopt my TW and have such >>> features in Tiddlywiki. >>> >>> --Mohammad >>> >> -- 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/10a240fa-22fb-403b-a41d-9a8ba47a6a79%40googlegroups.com.
