Hi GJRobert,
Haha, that space is doing a great demo job... Thanks a lot! Pardon that I
> haven't completely expressed all the features (as you did) in my doc. I
> should have split and organized the contents in your fashion.
>
Glad you like it.
1) the syntax for custom css wrappers might have looked nicer as
*={myMlass{plain
>> block}=* or *-{myClass{inline block}-* ...was there something forcing
>> you to use so many instead or is it rather that your block and a custom css
>> wrapper can be nested? Otherwise, perhaps extend your syntax?
>>
>
> Yes, ={ }= and -{ }- can nest CSS wrappers without problem. But extending
> the syntax is indeed feasible.
>
> All the problem was that I just borrowed the code from
> LegacyStrikeThroughPlugin in the beginning of my journey, to adapt into
> different formatters. Since most of the inline wrapping markups of
> TiddlyWiki are involved with "some characters ahead"...(text)..."some
> characters behind" to create semantic elements like <strong>, <em>, <u>,
> <strike> etc., and I did not take time to understand the handlers behind
> them, so all I thought was just creating new elements in the same way to
> achieve what I wanted.
>
> But now that after seeing how you have modify NodeTreePlugin to use
> standard <div> with classes by changing the parameters in
> createTiddlyElement(), I now know that my old PlockPlugin should get some
> surgeries too. I still threw my current version however, to receive
> suggestions earlier.
>
> I hope to achieve your suggestion soon. I also guess that the handler of
> @@...@@ can be studied too, because it takes custom styles and generate
> spans. Or, maybe looking at the handlers of {{CSS{wrappers}}} will do...
>
I see, that's what I thought. So, not sure how much effort should be put
into this. If it takes days to figure out how to make ={myClass{foo}= work,
perhaps leave it as is. Right now I am rather reluctant to investigate
myself ;-)... but if you want to, feel free.
While you're at it, I also quite like the new tw5 style pre and code
elements using `back-ticks`. Perhaps that's something easily added into
PlockPlugin? Sure, copy and pasting tiddlers with such markup into another
TiddlyWiki will break unless it also has *PlockPlugin *installed. That's
why I think it may be best to just have one such plugin as a requirement
rather than a number of them introducing different formatters... so long as
they can somehow be reasonably said to bundle into something coherent.
But then perhaps a *FiveFormatterPlugin* may be better supporting core tw5
syntax features. One thing where I would immediately use it is when
documenting tw5 within a tw2... just to be able to leverage current tw2
capabilities in doing so.
2) it may be desireable to define a default class to a <p> rendered by your
>> plugin. That way, one could use your markup for dedicated purposes without
>> fearing that other <p>'s wherever they may originate from interfere.
>>
>
> Sounds good! How about the class "p.plock"? Is it short enough?
>
Sure, nobody is hardly ever going to look at it anyways. It's just that you
use a specific *.plock* container rather than the generic *p* which might
as well be something inside a copy-pased *<html>block><html>* with its
original styles and all.
- tobias
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
