Thank you. I am much relieved. I would not have looked forward to having every file in my git repository touched, and to have all of the tiddlers' text bodies crammed into one line.
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:36:50 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: > Hi Flibbles, > > No significant changes to saving no node.js. Currently tiddlers of type > text/vnd.tiddlywiki are saved as .tid, files unless they have mutliline > fields in which case those tiddlers are saved as .json files. This will > remain the same with the addendum that a tiddler with field names with a > colon in them will also be saved as a .json file. > > Saq > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 9:21:17 PM UTC+2 Flibbles wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> Question: Is this going to impact the way NodeJS servers saves tiddlers >> to file? Will they no longer be .tid files, and maybe be .json files >> instead? >> >> -Flibbles >> >> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-4 TW Tones wrote: >> >>> Springer, >>> >>> From a design perspective for column headings I would stick to a >>> standard fields such as column-heading with the value"🎾" on a tiddler >>> called "tennis", or as the case may be a sport tiddler. >>> >>> Already dynamic tables support alternate column names in a standard >>> field/value and there is not reason in my view to tamper with fieldnames. >>> >>> I am sure there are reasons, but your suggestion to me, is like I posted >>> previously, you may be about to hang yourself with the extra rope you have >>> being given for field names. I would avoid this excursion unless you can >>> establish a good reason otherwise you are possibly forgoing the ability to >>> use your tiddlers, with the large library of plugins and macros that have >>> gone before. >>> >>> Just my viewpoint >>> Tones >>> >>> >>> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 23:58:23 UTC+10 springer wrote: >>> >>>> Mario, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the bracket fix! (I should have caught that, but was getting >>>> bleary-eyed.) >>>> >>>> When you say, "you mainly test with tiddler titles, and not fields. >>>> Even if you have strange field names...," I'm not sure what you mean. I >>>> have focused mostly on having strange field names that correspond to >>>> strange tiddler titles, partly because I anticipate that the newly open >>>> field-name space will get half its value from letting field names >>>> correspond to tiddler titles. And because of the centrality of Shiraz to >>>> my >>>> own workflow, I have been testing how Shiraz (especially dynamic tables) >>>> behaves with the new field name possibilities. >>>> >>>> My other anticipated use for strange field names is to serve as compact >>>> headings in dynamic tables, where the difference between "tennis" and 🎾 or >>>> "recyclable" and ♻︎ (in a field with √ or X values) is conservation of >>>> horizontal table space. >>>> >>>> So: What other kinds of tests do you (and others) see as important? >>>> Though my coding skills are minimal, the challenge to test the limits of a >>>> new feature is one area where I enjoy chipping in as best I can. >>>> >>>> -Springer >>>> >>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-4 PMario wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Nice tests, but you mainly test with tiddler titles, and not fields. >>>>> Even if you have strange field names in your tiddlers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://springerspandrel.github.io/tw/new-json-tw-experiment.html#Show%20related%20field-table%20(ViewTemplate) >>>>> >>>>> .. The filter is probably broken, because the number of opne/close braces >>>>> are wrong. The last closing brace is missing ...first[]] >>>>> >>>>> BUT I didn't test the code. >>>>> >>>>> -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/1628bd1e-ac4f-4b01-83f7-d9d527c2c7b1n%40googlegroups.com.
