oups. forgot that restriction. I mostly work with indexes (greater liberty for names)
what about main. and main._.sub ? ._. is seen nowhere else and is rather cute and evoke a SUBtil smile. Le mardi 4 mai 2021 à 13:45:46 UTC+2, TW Tones a écrit : > jean-Pierre > > Field Names are quite limited > > *TiddlerFields are name:value pairs that make up a [[tiddler|Tiddlers]]. > Field names must be lowercase letters, digits or the characters `-` (dash), > `_` (underscore) and `.` (period).* > https://tiddlywiki.com/#TiddlerFields > > The .. considered as continuation actually works from my perspective eg > url.. is continued elsewhere in url..name. > > In answer to your question, yes they should be regular fields you can use > in every other way if possible. The question is what is the defacto > standard and how do we best implement support for such fields. Can we > provide a generic solution? > > Tones > > > On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 20:26:30 UTC+10 [email protected] wrote: > >> ".." is commonly used in describing a continuation, for instance 3..7 is >> for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. >> >> IMO the proposed use of .. is then counter-intuitive. >> >> I prefer a simple dot. >> >> We could use an arrow but -> is awkward in an html oriented language so >> it's a no-starter. >> >> We could use ^ but it may interfer in regexp. it would probably be no big >> deal though. >> >> We could have a mix. for instance: >> >> main field is "date." >> sub-fields are "date.^value" or "date.^format" or "date.^units". >> >> the other way around: >> >> main field is "date^" >> sub-fields are "date^.value" or "date^.format" or "date^.units". >> >> question: are sub-fields regular fields in the end, just being taken in >> charge by a set of ad-hoc macros and filters and templates? there would be >> a lot to tinker depending of the choces being made. or are sub-field a >> brand new mechanism of 1st-class core components? >> >> just suggestions... >> >> -- >> Jean-Pierre >> Le mardi 4 mai 2021 à 11:32:04 UTC+2, PMario a écrit : >> >>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 11:27:49 AM UTC+2 PMario wrote: >>> >>> I still want to have sec-expanded-years >>>> <https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-expanded-years> as in >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/YaFzHXfjnFc/m/jpQJrSi8BwAJ >>>> and: SI prefix multipliers >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#SI_prefix_multipliershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year%23SI_prefix_multipliers> >>>> >>>> as in: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/YaFzHXfjnFc/m/l5S9-TnaBwAJ >>>> from the same thread. >>>> >>> >>> And I want, that TW-fields can handle this. eg: long-ago..from, >>> long-ago..to >>> >>> just an idea ;) >>> -mario >>> >> -- 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/87975951-64d7-4fa5-873d-e9d52b565ba6n%40googlegroups.com.
