Hello FND, On Apr 18, 12:57 am, FND <[email protected]> wrote: > > So I'm wondering if we're going to wake up one day > > to [browsers] that no longer [allow] TW to save. > > Nor alternatives via java? > > While that possibility exists, it seems highly > unlikely. Browser vendors, while security-conscious, > are very keen on not breaking compatibility with > existing websites or applications. It's worth noting > that TiddlyWiki will always be readable, so you will > not lose access to your data.
Readability is nice, but that renders TW only suitable for kiosk use. The browser vendors seem to already be shutting the gates. Its possible that they can not guarantee security while allowing any sort of script to touch the local hard drive. And nobody wants to be liable for massive security breaches. > While HTML5 provides local storage, that is currently > is limited to a database within the respective user's > individual browser - so it's not very portable. That's what I suspected. > > Too bad they don't have a portable web-server app. > > That might future-proof TW. > > Indeed, that would always remain an option. > TiddlyWeb already provides this - it's just that we > don't have a I haven't followed TiddlyWeb closely, but once you have a server running, there don't seem to be as many compelling reasons to choose TW over some other, industry standard product (e.g. MediaWiki). The "lightweight" version of XAMPP weighs in at 100 megs space! So far I haven't heard anything to suggest there is nothing to be worried about. Like, "We'll always have technology X", or "HTML5 has a save mechanism built in", or "Brand Z browser promises to always allow saving". Thanks, Mark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
