As always @Tones: thanks for helping to clarify my fuzzy thinking :-) Quick comments inline below:
Please let me restate your statement "if Tiddly-Streams had a solid > .md<->tid converter", actually, I believe it should be "if *TiddlyWiki* > had a solid .md<->tid converter". > Of course, that makes sense; the conversion affordance should live at the lower TW level. I've just been w/ tunnel vision the last few days about moving content (including hierarchal presentation) from Streams:nodes to Tiddler body, but this is indeed a platform issue. /w Sure streams may be the best front end for what you discuss, but the last > mile is one for tiddlywiki. There are other front ends other users prefer > in TiddlyWiki (in no way diminishing Streams). > Yes! And i'm still using a mitfull of those other tront ends myself; again, shame on me for the narrowminded thinking. /w Also it not about tid<->md more about tiddlywiki<->md. > Indeed? Must confess, this is a nuance of understanding that eludes me. Can you shed additional light as to what this distinction means, in practical terms? /w > My preference is to build a converter and add it to https://pandoc.org/ > then the last mile to another format can become the last mile to many > formats. See examples in Wiki markup formats. > Ah... You mean that TiddlyWiki format (whatever that means; i thought it was .tid) should join that list on Pandoc page of "Wiki markup formats" supported? What would be involved in achieving that, i wonder... /w The fact is a path most likely exists already, and example is generate > compliant HTML code and you can convert to markdown. However it would be > more robust if we could go in both directions with TiddlyWiki's own markup. > The issue may be the more advanced tiddlers using widgets, however these > can be used to generate "static" content not containing widgets for > publishing. > My simpleton (i.e. text-wrangling, not code-slinging) perspective is: the simplest step for those us writing in TW to move content back-&-forth with the outside world would be: a mainstream text-based format that supports a minimal modicum of formatting, that is machine parsable to html and other formats, but still readable by humans. The only format i know that meets these requirements is Markdown. This is probably the simplest and highest-leverage step we could take, to make that breakthru into mainstream viability -dontcha think? /w Its all about structure and content. If you ensure you retain all the > structure and content you need you can typically convert anything to > anything. > If you say so, mate -i'm happy to hear it! /w TiddlyWiki is already "a real category-killer", in many categories. > Amen, @Tones! /walt > Regards > Tones > > > > > > On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 22:20:38 UTC+10 ludwa6 wrote: > >> Thanks-you, @keela, for chiming-in; so good to hear from another >> fellow-traveller on this path-less-travelled. Were it not for that "ugly >> ditch" of which you speak, i suspect we'd have a lot more company -which >> will likely be the case, i suspect, if this Tiddly-Streams solution ever >> comes to the attention of some like-minded mainstream influencer(s). >> >> In fact: having bridged that "ugly ditch," it is just the "last mile >> problem" that remains to be solved, for Tiddly-Streams to be a real >> category-killer, IMHO. I don't know (being a civilian in this world of >> code-slingers) what it would involve, but it seems to me that if >> Tiddly-Streams had a solid .md<->tid converter, that would make for interop >> with so many other publishing tools (many of which can easily convert to >> LaTex), that would then make this the most versatile tool available for >> anyone who slings ideas for a living -bar none! >> >> That being said: this is still more of a toolkit, not such a polished >> solution as some others, which have had the benefit of significant >> investment capital. Still: in terms of usability & utility right out of >> the box, Tiddly-Streams beats the pants off Roam or Obsidian or Node, or so >> many of other solutions that are getting way more attention of late, for >> delivering just a subset of what we have here. IMHO! >> >> /walt >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+1 [email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> It's been a bit since I've had time to chime in on the group here, but I >>> wanted to drop my two cents in as well. I use Streams significantly. In >>> fact, it's the plugin that has made TiddlyWiki a superior tool for me in my >>> research and writing. My work has me doing a great deal of historical >>> research and then writing long form output. >>> >>> Walt notes the architect/gardner distinction. I actually think Streams >>> in TW5 is one of the best crossover tools I've seen to bridge the space >>> between those things. In my lane of knowledge work, I have to start in one >>> and transition to the other. There is usually an ugly ditch between the two >>> when it comes to tools that are good for one or the other. I've used a lot >>> of different tools at this point, but nothing comes close (for me at least) >>> to allowing the idea generation phase to seamlessly transition into long >>> form writing. The friction for me right now is found in "last mile" >>> portions of my workflow as I'm trying to get it out of TiddlyWiki into >>> industry standard publication formats. >>> >>> @Saq, I've said this before, but you've developed one of the most >>> helpful tools I've used in years. It not only works seamlessly until the >>> final steps, but it also does so in a clean, minimalist way that doesn't >>> interrupt the creative process. It's not cluttered up with extra boxes or >>> constantly requiring some form of context switching to get thoughts down in >>> draft form. >>> >>> My use case: >>> >>> - *I collect notes from works I'm reading* (books, journal articles, >>> etc.) into source streams. These are titled with a bibtex key using the >>> bibtex plugin. >>> - *I use Streams for drafting my writing.* This is what is most >>> important to me. I develop the outline for my long form writing (think >>> academic articles or book length) by creating a root stream and building >>> out the outline. The beauty of Streams is that it allows me to build >>> that >>> initial outline out into an entire draft of my article, from simple >>> headings all the way to full body text. It grows easily. Nodes can be >>> full >>> paragraphs, so I begin writing my article inside the outline itself. >>> This >>> allows the flexibility to easily move paragraphs and whole sections >>> around >>> as I'm writing in draft mode. In addition, since I tie my notes to a >>> tiddler titled with a bibtex key, I can link to my notes by citing the >>> bibtex key for a source in my draft. This becomes helpful later, when I >>> want to move this work to LaTeX or elsewhere for publication. >>> - *The need to flatten and export for publication. *Of course, when >>> the draft is complete, I need an easy way to export my written article >>> into >>> a format that I'm able to publish. This is currently the most fragile >>> part >>> of the process. Though, that is likely my lack of understanding when it >>> comes to coding or writing my own solution. >>> >>> On flattening & exporting: >>> I've played with some of the approaches above, and they work. In >>> specific Jan's mod is a helpful step in the right direction. However, some >>> of Walt's initial points in this thread really resonate with me. Ideally, I >>> think I would like to keep the initial draft of my work as an outline and >>> create a copy that is flattened for export. To Saq's point above, a >>> wikitext tiddler is superior to a markdown tiddler. I wouldn't want to lose >>> my initial streams set by flattening in a way that replaces it. I'd rather >>> keep it as a stream and export a flattened tiddler. If I'm not mistaken, >>> the default behavior of most flattening techniques I've seen is to flatten >>> the actual collection of tiddlers instead of outputting a copy. I'd love to >>> have a setting to make a copy instead. Perhaps that is something that could >>> be added to Jan's dialogue box of settings alongside the ability to choose >>> bullets or paragraph format. >>> >>> Furthermore, thinking toward export, Walt's suggestion of parsing into >>> Markdown would be really helpful for me. Even more helpful would be LaTeX, >>> but that's probably too niche for most people. In a perfect world, I would >>> draft up a full article in Streams, then have an easy "one-button" export >>> process that (1) flattens the text into a single tiddler* as a copy of >>> the original* and (2) parses the results into either markdown or >>> (preferably) LaTeX for easy copy and paste export into my publishing tool. >>> Bonus points if I could choose to export as markdown or LaTeX! >>> >>> Grateful for the work of this community, and the conversation that is >>> always going on around here about how to make better tools for thought. >>> >>> >>>>> -- 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/20f5c5da-8a88-4a82-bfc1-6125c860d4can%40googlegroups.com.
