On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 1:48:35 AM UTC+2 Stobot wrote: ... > In that thread I volunteered to at least mock up a POC to gather thoughts. > As Jeremy correctly pointed out, it'd be of no use to do just 1 widget, > we'd have to do them all. So, I mocked up something flexible here > (Documentation > — Syntax for Widgets (tiddlyhost.com) > <https://docs-syntax.tiddlyhost.com/> ) for people to give thoughts on. > It might make sense to add a Disqus plugin or something if this gets > traction, but I haven't put anything there yet. >
We do have Gitter.im <https://gitter.im/TiddlyWiki> and Discord <https://discord.gg/A8ATXV8v> for "slow pace" discussions and the GG here for immediate feedback. So IMO no new service is needed. While it seemed pretty cut and dry at first, it turns out there's a need > for some subjective thoughts / preferences on how to handle things. > The overall structure seems to be OK > For example, I think I'd like to show the full widget, even if the > "content" is ignored, to illustrate that fact, > I'm in favour, that this info gets a more prominent place. BUT but some may disagree and we'd have to think about how to show the "closed" > version? > If there is a "closed version" it should also be mentioned in the "Syntax" area. > like <$link/> rather than <$link></$link>. > > Next would be how best to distinguish the difference between required > attributes and optional ones. > I would be OK with "*bold*" and "*italic*" ... BUT every attribute should have *_only_ 1 formatting*. ... So bold-italic should _not_ happen. > Most other documentation seems to use things like square brackets [] or > angle brackets <> for this stuff, but that would get confusing in > TiddlyWiki, so I'm leaning towards either color (red for required, green > for optional) or more gently *bold* for required, *italic* for optional. > As written above. .. +1 > It'd be a good deal of work to go through this with this, and there are a > bunch of decisions to be made I'm realizing after trying to do a few > things, like best way to handle when say either tiddler/field/index is > required - how to format that? I built the syntax area as a macro and put > the data in fields, so we tweak things easily. > That's a good decision, so we can change the layout globally. ... It may evolve over time, once more and more operators get added. > So, I'm essentially posting this to gauge interest and get ideas. Because > it'd be so much work, I don't want to start wasting time at something that > either nobody cares much about, or that wouldn't get implemented anyways. > Till now it looks good! > Also I'll mention that Mohammad actually brought up filter operators > originally and I agree that could use the same treatment, so if this was > successful I/we could apply the same effort into those. > +1 -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/f1085bd6-c427-4518-822d-0fc0657f2d0bn%40googlegroups.com.
