bimlas wrote: > > > It’s an ingenious solution, but I see the same problem in it as in bullet > list solutions: it makes searching cumbersome. For example, if I search for > "create", only that paragraph will be included in the search results, so if > I want to see the original tiddler, I have to search back by its name. I > don’t know if it simplifies or complicates life. >
Its a interesting question. In a way reflecting issues that came up in "What is a fragment? <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/UvxbgQjNj58/8M3xB4pLAwAJ>". Mark's solution I think should be thought of in context of EDITING. The "fragment" size in edit may not directly correspond to the fragment size in SEMANTIC VIEWING / SEARCHING. IMO we need differentiate TOOLS that users need to CREATE wiki from the NEEDED UTILITY for end users. I think Mark's tool is fascinating. Currently its dominantly a FRAGMENT catalyst. But I think in time it will really aid answer "what is my semantic unit?" Once RE-composition is evident. 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/74489312-32cd-4a40-9e0e-541a00a92d7f%40googlegroups.com.
