Folks,
*Background*
I avoid polluting the tag name space by using fields whereever possible
rather than tags, including alternative tag fields. I retain my tagging
options for ad hoc relationships.
I am only now becoming concerned that a pile of solutions I have, for which
I have developed my own fieldname standards, may be polluting the fieldname
space. That is I define so many fields, it could perhaps confuse users or
designers.
- I could make use of the core method to hide fields to reduce this
impact
- I could use a prefix for my various solutions fields,
- But I think this is ugly, because you can make nice filters with
english words
eg fieldname[fieldvalue] or show-details[yes] rather than
_show-details[yes] or psat-show-details[yes]
- but many fieldnames set a standard I use for a given fieldname and
I want them standardised.
Only recently I discovered a way to include additional information within
the text fields that are not visible so they can even replace fields.
This method also provides a method to use the name multiple names eg:
<!--
Reference: Some reference info
Reference: Some more reference info
-->
A Small set of custom filters and macros help work with this.
*Question?*
So since I now have an additional method should I reduce my use of
additional fields and make use of my discovery to reduce polluting the
fieldname space?
I would appreciate your view
*Note: *A Common answer in tiddlywiki is don't bother, use as many as you
want and if you get into trouble change it, does that apply here?
Regards
TonyM
--
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/e31a8b13-f8f3-408e-b4ec-a05e385101ea%40googlegroups.com.
