Jeremy et al.. If we were to use Xememex please tell me how to say it?, Which syllables are emphasised?. As in my prior post the issue is ease of use and speaking. If when introducing tiddlywiki (by another name) do you really want to be forced to spell it?. With a surname like mine, "Muscio" trust me I always have to spell it and few can workout how to say it just from reading it, in fact many jumble the letters to Music-o. This is actually helpful for a surname because of various reasons, like immediate detection of people who do not know me well on the phone, but it is not good as a transmissible meme.
My notes are about the approach not a name suggestion. On Quines *A quine is a computer program which takes no input and produces a copy of its own source code as its only output. The standard terms for these programs in the computability theory and computer science literature are self-replicating programs, self-reproducing programs, and self-copying programs. * Actually this definition found with a google search, is more about "trivial quines". It is wrong for tiddlywiki, because it can accept input and although it writes itself back (With new data and functions) it can also generate many different outputs. I like the Quine idea and I value its relationship to TW but it is ultimately only a partial description. Perhaps *advanced Quine*? (AQ) it even has a TLD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.aq not that we could register. I do favor the tiddler and/or a record, I have no quibble with tiddler, as it is "self defined" and can become many different things such as a record or card. My only Quibble is with "TiddlyWiki" when talking to others, I now say "TiddlyWiki platform" to new people. But for quite similar reasons I would not be happy with Xememex although like models of cars the introduction of X makes it sound like a recent model. I would once again be inclined to say " Xememex platform". Perhaps "meme platform" is more direct?. Regards Tones On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 20:53:02 UTC+11 [email protected] wrote: > Hi Ed > > Re-reading this message (and studiously avoiding making any suggestions > for new names) the idea of "targeting more modern JavaScript engines" makes > me wonder about the question of "how modern a browser do you need to have > to have a working Tiddlywiki?" > > With regards to minimum browsers for TW5, according to the web site it's > "Safari version 6" (from 2012!) IE version 10 (also from 2012!) and "all > recent" Chrome, Firefox, and Firefox for Android, whatever that means, but > presumably going back comparably far. So right now TW5 is usable in > browsers that go about 8 years back, which is nice. And TWC support > obviously goes back way further than that. > > How big a change in "you need this recent a browser" would you think was > acceptable in a "Xememex" project? > > > That would be to be decided. In 2010/1 we targeted the browsers that were > in common use at the time, and presumably we’d do the same again. Nowadays, > most browsers automatically update and so perhaps there might be less > incentive to be as conservative as we have been. > > From a developer perspective, HTML and CSS have actually changed > relatively little over the last 10 years, it’s in the area of JavaScript > that things have radically improved: async/await, modules, classes, etc. > Making these features available in the core will make the developers more > productive, and make it easier for developers with contemporary JavaScript > experience to join the project. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy > > > > On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 7:52:20 AM UTC-5 [email protected] > wrote: > >> As appealing as this sounds, I just don't think that as a small community >> we have the resources to support both, unless the intention would be for >> TiddlyWiki 5 to only receive bug fix updates. >> >> >> I think that would be the default, yes, unless somebody wanted to pick up >> the development more purposefully. >> >> As you mention in a later reply, the real challenge is replacing the word >> tiddler. I remember trying this in Classic and it wasn't easy then and is >> probably even harder now with all the widget attributes etc. Which makes me >> wonder if this would really be the best use of our time and resources? >> >> >> That is indeed one of the critical questions. >> >> Over the years we've had consistent feedback on the name "TiddlyWiki" >> that ranges between: >> >> * I don't care about the name, it's just a meaningless string of letters >> * I think the name is fine, it's distinctive, and has few false positives >> when Googling >> * I think the name diminishes TiddlyWiki >> * I think the name is a thinly veiled obscenity >> >> That last category is undoubtedly a minority, but it's a very >> consistently and forcefully expressed opinion when it does come up. I used >> to think that view said more about the people holding it than anything >> else. But the trouble is that I'm too close to the thing: the name >> "TiddlyWiki" is my little piece of wordplay, and I'm attached to it. I >> think maybe that might hold for many of us who have invested time and >> effort in the project. So I have to pay attention to feedback that comes >> from a different perspective, because I'm never going to be able to assume >> that perspective myself. >> >> The other consideration in all of this is my desire to modernise the >> design of TW5 and establish a new baseline for backwards compatibility. >> After 10 years, it's becoming increasingly limiting to live with some of >> the early design decisions of TW5 (a lot of which are pretty arcane - for >> example, "tiddlerfield" modules). I believe we would make faster and more >> decisive progress if we lost some of that baggage. >> >> The idea of modernising the core relates to the naming change because >> another bit of feedback that I received back in 2011-13 was that it was a >> mistake to reuse the name TiddlyWiki for the new project. Many people felt >> that it was unnecessarily confusing to have two distinct products with the >> same name, and struggled with my perspective that TWC and TW5 were >> different versions of the same thing. >> >> So, what I learned from all of the above is that names for communal >> things are tricky. People have strong opinions because they feel they have >> a stake. The thing that is particularly tricky is trying to change what an >> existing name means if the previous meaning is entrenched in the community. >> >> In other words, I think TiddlyWiki 5 is ripe for such a thorough internal >> overhaul that changing the names might not be as much of a practical >> consideration as it would be if we had to maintain backwards compatibility. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Jeremy. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Saq >> >> >> -- >> 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/46fa1057-6405-463e-8ec2-b67532599227n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/46fa1057-6405-463e-8ec2-b67532599227n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> > -- > 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/80869834-bb6c-44cd-9b74-96fcc7267286n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/80869834-bb6c-44cd-9b74-96fcc7267286n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/512bfc8f-e0ac-4549-83f3-2a6ed5b778ecn%40googlegroups.com.
