I too would like to see adoption of a standard format. I'd assume that like existing TiddlyWiki one could swap in/out syntaxes (but probably even more easily) so I could imagine supporting a plugin to help with this transition.
I would assume it would be easy to convert from one format to another, since TiddlyWiki markup can be converted to html then from that into WikiCreole. I could imagine a transition tool that takes an old TiddlyWiki and converts it into a new TiddlyWiki. On Dec 17, 5:21 am, HansBKK <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2011 9:55:25 PM UTC+7, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > > WikiCreole is interesting. I hadn't seen the amendments section. I'd be > > interested in trying to make TiddlyWiki5's format compatible with > > WikiCreole, but only if it can be done without substantially impacting > > existing texts. > > IMO **Any** standardized syntax would be better than keeping TW's unique. > That way at least there's a way to get plugged into a toolchain down the > road without having to write a specific converter template/parser for TW. > > Converting to or from the "standardX" markup used by TW is then more than > likely to be supported by converter/parser engines like Pandocs and > docutils as they continue to evolve, or at least if a new > "tangler/template" whatever needs to be written for it that's useful to the > whole ecosystem, not just the one community, and therefore more likely to > be supported and maintained over time. > > The primary area where backwards compatibility is a concern is the> handling > of paragraphs. TiddlyWiki's use of <br> tags is just plain wrong, > > and I think it's worth taking a minor compatibility hit in order to gain > > the advantage of producing semantically proper HTML, which is generally > > much more useful. > > > The reason that I'm so keen on backwards compatibility is that there is a > > lot of text out there in TiddlyWiki format; much of it on > > people's hard drives. I like the idea of enhancing the value of that > > existing investment by making it super easy for existing users to take > > advantage of the new features of the new software. > > That goal is of course essential, but I would think it wouldn't be that > hard (easy for me to say not having a clue about programming) for the TW > code at the point where a tiddler is first being created to parse the data, > recognize it's TW4syntax (by the paragraph mark?) and do a one-time > conversion to the TW5syntax. > > If you're fixing the paragraph syntax you'll have to do something like that > to accomplish the above goal anyway. > > On Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:22:51 PM UTC+7, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > I've been doing a lot of research and playing around in the "tools that > > transform markup" space recently, and would **implore** you to consider > > choosing one of the more mainstream cross-platform syntaxes rather than > > re-implementing a proprietary TWmarkup, even if it may be "based on" one of > > them. > > Sorry for the use of the word "proprietary", very rude in the FOSS world I > know - how about "unique" syntax? > > > the idea of pluggable parsers and renderers, so that it is possible to > > adopt other formats, and intermingle them and so on. If you can find a > > JavaScript parser for it, then hopefully you'll be able to use it. > > I think this would only work from a user's POV if the option of using the > other syntax were available right out of the gate, just flip a switch in > the config and bang it works with "standardX" markup. Just making the > architecture theoretically available for future plug-in authors is better > than not having that but. . . > > >> Adopting MarkDown in its entirety is a bit troublesome from my > > perspective; it's not very formally defined > > I don't like it myself, but sometimes defacto standards offering a lot of > cross-program interoperability are better than perfect implementations that > remain on the shelf like museum displays. > > > I need JavaScript code, obviously. There may be bits and pieces worth > > taking from those projects, but a brief glance shows that they take in > > concerns that don't entirely match TiddlyWiki, so I don't see a way to > > wholesale adopt those syntaxes. > > I don't understand this - the specification for a syntax is one thing, a > given bit of code that uses that syntax to do convert/render from the > plaintext to whatever can/should be in whatever language is used by the > tool. > > The whole point I'm getting at is to be able to keep our data in a > canonical format as plain text, for transfer to whatever "container", files > in folders on whatever storage medium, database, CMS, wiki, and easily get > it out there as EPUB, static HTML, DocBook whatever. Obviously there isn't > currently such a beast with parsers/converters/renderers etc implemented in > every mainstream language, or everyone would be using it. I'm just doing my > bit to advocate that one of the cool tools I use help move in that > desirable direction. > > If TiddlyWiki can help facilitate that goal it's that much more valuable as > one of those platform choices, whether used as a source-file editor or > target publishing format for output from other parts of the toolchain. > > > IMO the key is to **not** pick and choose bits and pieces, but to take on > > an entire **syntax spec as a whole**. > > As I say, the ability to have pluggable parsers and renderers should give > > > you the capabilities you want. For you, the native TiddlyWiki format might > > just be what gets used for the application plumbing, with all your content > > being in other formats. > > Note I'm *only* talking about markup within the tiddler **content** area - > what goes into the data-entry box in the normal core UI, what gets exported > out to plain-text today using Eric's tools I cited earlier. So headers, > paragraphs, bold/italic/underline/strikethrough/monospace, lists and > tables, images, codeblocks and quoteblocks, HR separator, comments, URLs > and email links. > > What TW needs internally is a black box AFAIC, although having a simple > intra-file link, even if only to tiddlerTitle would be a bonus. > > Sorry to keep ranting on, I'll try to have this be 'nuff said. . . -- 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.
