On Friday, December 9, 2011 3:13:50 AM UTC-5, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Thanks for the comments Hans. I've already announced elsewhere that I > am now working on TiddlyWiki again.
I am so glad to hear this and this surely shall provide an immense fillip to whole tw development world. > I've been working on the build > tools, which might sound non-essential, but actually is key: the > difficulties with developing and publishing TiddlyWiki have slowed > things down in the past. Once that's done, I plan to address the > browser compatibility issues. > > I'll continue to talk about progress in [twdev], and will announce any > big milestones in [tw]. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy > > > -- > http://jermolene.com > http://tiddlywiki.com > http://osmosoft.com > > On 9 Dec 2011, at 02:01, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The recent comments about the public perception of TW being outdated > > are of course inaccurate. For those of us already cognizant of the > > value it provides, we're more than happy to employ kludgey workarounds > > like portable Firefox to get that value. > > > > However for those of us trying to get other, perhaps less technical > > people to adopt our TW-based solutions, it is true that the lack of > > support for modern browsers reflects poorly on the project, and > > affects the client's perception of our recommendation and therefore > > ourselves. > > > > All FOSS projects with plugins/modules/extensions suffer from the > > unreliability of the add-on developers, and only a subset continue to > > be kept current and viable over the long term. However it is IMO > > **critical** to a project's overall success that the **core** be well > > maintained, so at least the basic functionality offered by the > > software is available to users with "normal default" platform > > requirements. > > > > It's true that Chrome and FF's rapid update cycle, coupled with the > > fact (I assume?) that JavaScript isn't as well "standardized" as say > > HTML/CSS have created a game-changingly different reality for > > browser-based application platforms, but the fact is that we all must > > adapt ourselves to Reality as it presents itself to us. > > > > In the world of FOSS, every developer has their own itch to scratch > > and we mere users without the skills to contribute to the project's > > development don't have the right to complain about what is so freely > > given to us. But of course that doesn't stop us from acting as if we > > were paying customers, and that is also part of the reality of FOSS. > > So please forgive me for speaking my opinion forthrightly, and > > understand my strong feelings are the result of my fervent admiration > > for Tiddlywiki; I am truly grateful for the inspiration it has offered > > me so far. > > > > Bottom line: TW's ability to interact with external programs, remote > > storage, synchronization, version control, all these things are > > important I'm sure to many of TWs users (=customers). However, if > > development time and attention are devoted to such accessory > > functionality at the expense of the core being kept compatible with > > modern browsers, I personally fear for the mainstream viability of the > > project as a whole. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/-/qcX5nm2M7VoJ. 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.
