On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:16:55 AM UTC+1, Anton Aylward wrote: > > What I'm seeing and what I've posted is that this field and the parsing > with the built in Date.parse() is inconsistent.
I think, what Stephan wants to say is, you could easily use a string instead of a date. So if you edit text you can just enter what ever you want, because it's just a string. If you don't need date calculation eg: today + 6d -> 2014.03.01 you don't need date fields. I also think TW can't handle this calculation anyway :) TW date format is stored in the eg: modified field like this: 201402231526 which is YYYYMMDDhhmm So if you don't need displa format changes like convert 2014.02.23 to Son, 23.Feb, you are good to go with a string, instead a date input. If you sort with a date format like this: 2014.02.23 you will be fine. even if you need 20014.02.23 a future date would be ok. if you use 02014.02.23 for today ... So the standard TW alphabetical sorting mechanism will work. If you don't want the leading zero, you'll need a plugin. (I do have one for this type of sorting. But it may not work out of the box with fields. It uses tiddler titels atm:) BC dates may have a problem but may be test with BC00763 BC00000 may work too if used as strings. -mario -- 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.
