Hi, I agree with you and see the problem. One simple solution is just sharing links like https://tiddlywiki.com/#:[created[20140904085700000]]
Best, Anders onsdag 5. mai 2021 kl. 14:15:43 UTC+2 skrev ludwa6: > OK @Tones & @TT: if neither of you guys sees this as problematic, then i'd > better explain myself better. Here's a meta-example i've just documented: > > 1. Create a tiddler on this topic, and give it a permalink: > https://meta.tiddlyhost.com/#AvoidingLinkRot. Share link with > friends, to engage their support in taming this dragon! > 2. Recall that "Link Rot" is a well-known problem, which Wikipedia > might know about- and indeed: see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot > 3. Realise that- in keeping w/ principle of AtomicGranularity- i > should probably limit this tiddler to describing the problem (including > link to that Wikipedia article and maybe just my review of that material) > and rename it after that article: "ProblemOfLinkRot" > 4. Work away on that renamed tiddler, adding my detailed analysis of > the article, and the problem. > 5. Puzzled after a time as to why nobody is commenting on my work, > check the link -and find out that it's broken. (yeesh! and nobody told me? > did they even click the link i shared?) > > i've run through this loop enough times, it's already getting old. Could > it be that it's just me, i wonder? > > /walt > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:51:28 AM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> Ciao walt, >> >> Right. Tiddler PERMALINK-ability posted as URLs elsewhere is intimately >> tied to NOT changing Titles. >> >> Personally I can't get in a hot sweat over that. That is no different >> than any other web page. >> SURE you could get into REDIRECTS on a server or up the complexity >> within TW of self-REDIRECTS I guess? >> >> I don't really see the point though :-). >> >> Best wishes >> TT >> >> On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 10:34:24 UTC+2 ludwa6 wrote: >> >>> The more i use TW, the more concerned i become about maintaining data >>> integrity -and so this issue has boiled to the top of my queue: how can i >>> continue to enjoy the benefits of TW (+ Relink plugin) flexibility, without >>> compromising the integrity of Permalinks? >>> >>> This feels like a deep problem that goes right to core TW architecture- >>> since, as PMario explained in last thread >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/kTrAbuneCkA/m/lAsdkriFAgAJ>, >>> tiddler immutability is tied to its Title (so how can Relink even work, i >>> wonder?)- but if i've learned anything here, it is to not underestimate the >>> creative problem-solving ability of this group :-)... SO: >>> >>> From a non-technical perspective, what i'd like to do is have some >>> immutable UID (based on date-time, or maybe date+ a serial number, like >>> yyyy-mm-dd-serialnum) that is used for Permalinks (i.e. shared w/ the >>> outside web that is not Relink-aware), but still have Title field and >>> Relink plugin (and everything else for that matter) work just as it does >>> now, from the TW editor's perspective. >>> >>> Is this a reasonable feature design goal, i wonder? If so, i'd like to >>> do what i can to help make it happen! >>> >>> /walt >>> >>> -- 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/5a4e8412-a4b1-4c68-8add-9b611474af8an%40googlegroups.com.
