I agree. Standardize the back-end (tiddlers as independent files) with DropBox, leveraging its version control and ubiquitous syncing. Then built multiple/varied front ends for manipulating those files. The simplest ones would enable a single user to access (create, edit, view) their own tiddlers from any platform (PC, Mac, web, iOS, Android, etc.). More complicated ones could layer on view-only sharing, first of individual tiddlers or whole collections of tiddlers (ie. tiddywikis). Even more complicated front ends could enable actual collaboration (two-way sharing), either synchronously or asynchronously. But let's not lose sight of the benefit of even the simplest use case.
On May 11, 1:56 am, HansBKK <[email protected]> wrote: > My 2 cents: > > To me, Jeremy's tiddlers-as-independent-files is the core enabling > idea, for the reason he gave - it exposes each tiddler as an > independent entity for version control. > > Many people using Dropbox, that's all fine and good, but I'd hate to > see a lot of Dropbox-specific work done when there are so many other > version control systems out there suitable for enabling multi-user > collaboration on TW-hosted content. > > IMO we should let people use the version control & distribution > implementation they prefer - some are rabid Git'ers, others are > already set up with a Subversion network, and so on. These solutions > are very robust, both in features and reliability and IMO should be > the basis for handling the distributed authoring side of things. > > TW's strength is in the presentation side of things, and if the TW > developers focus on simply implementing that one key concept - TW > dynamically pulling tiddler content from external files - it could be > done pretty quickly. > > I don't think the TW code should be trying to overcome Dropbox's > limitations as a "back end" file-hosting/version control system - it > makes more sense for those users that need more than what Dropbox > offers to then just swap over to a more mature and widely implemented > platform for that side of things. > > To the extent developers do want to code to a specific back-end, then > I would recommend a plug-in architecture, allowing for the same front- > end code to talk to different file-hosting/version control systems, > but of course that would be a much bigger project, and IMO premature > at this stage. -- 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.
