Mario, You speculation sounds interesting, but I do not fully grasp it.
In relation to inheritance I have build a few applications on tiddlywiki that define a fieldname by creating a "fieldname" tiddler (like you can with tags tiddlers), within that there are fields that define the "default values" and other details, however the most critical is the field-type field, each field-type eg date, also have a tiddler of their own and they contain fields for modes (read-only view update edit and design). In each of these field-type's mode fields, I place the wikitext and macros to operate on the field in each mode. Fieldname tiddlers may also have a values-filter used in the field-type to provide a select in edit and update modes. Then I access any field in the body of a tiddler or view template with <<field fieldname>> and this macro is sensitive to the field definition, its field-type and its mode. Once can also force the mode <<field fieldname edit>> (but not if in read-only mode) There will always be more fieldnames than field-types because many fields can use the same field-type eg; date, short-text, prose. With a structured design one can collect fieldname definitions and the related field-types and share these among wikis for rapid development. With the above already in the wings, you can see how needing these complementary fields is another dimension in creating comprehensive mechanisms for solutions. It would be interesting to consider if a fieldname defined using the above mechanism (fieldname/field-type/mode) could be designed to support the "complementary fields". For example if the fieldname is created/populated on a tiddler its fieldname..displayname would be created and a default set. In the tiddler (template) the designer could place <<field fieldname "" related>> to display the complementary fields in the tiddler mode. eg read only may only show a hyperlink with the name and target, edit mode the way to edit name and target. I can share some examples of my prior work on this is anyone is interested. Tones On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 17:13:50 UTC+10 PMario wrote: > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 8:48:36 AM UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: > > It seems to me that these smart fields would lesser the need to have json >> data. Or maybe we could just have fields store json data and get methods >> for accessing json au part of the core? Thus, we would be able to handle >> them but also json in the text field, which is only a field like other. > > > If we want user-facing wikitext functions that can handle JSON, imo we > would need a "schema", that defines the behavior. > > This is 1 level "higher" than my previous thoughts. > > just brainstorming. > -m > -- 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/bdb882c2-d4da-4dca-b468-00a66c5d3309n%40googlegroups.com.
