Hi Felix > > By the way, is there any reason, why the tiddlers do not get a unique id > on creation time as a field value per default? > This would support people to create unbreakable references via ids, > without the previous effort to give each tiddler a unique id or creating a > custom button. >
That's the unavoidable, perennial question referred to above. A simple formulation is: do we use the "title" field as the identifier for a tiddler the "title" field, or do we use a separate "ID" field. The two options can't co-exist, we need to choose one. TiddlyWiki chooses the former on the basis that is a more human formulation, and that it can trivially emulate the ID approach. But that is done by using the title field as an ID, not by introducing a new ID field. The reason is because of the need to enforce uniqueness: we guarantee the uniqueness of titles, but not of other fields. Best wishes Jeremy. > Regards > Felix > > > > > On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:02:33 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > >> This question of whether tiddlers should be identified by title or by an >> abstract GUID is a perennial one. >> >> My aim is that users should be able to use GUIDs for tiddler titles if it >> suits their use case. The missing piece is a way of linking to a tiddler by >> it's GUID/title, but having a specified field displayed as the text of the >> link. Here's an example of a macro to do that: >> >> \define link(guid) >> <$tiddler tiddler="$guid$"><$link><$view field="name"/></$link></$ >> tiddler> >> \end >> >> This is a link by guid <<link qqu99yie1>> >> >> Of course, it would be more useful if one could arrange for that macro to >> be automatically substituted for links. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Jeremy. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Felix Küppers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, I know linking via ids is not readable in edit mode, however in a >>> non-edit mode, the id translates to a name, so that is ok for me. >>> >>> As for semantic-alias (i.e. a real second title) vs. ids, I rather chose >>> ids as their purpose is only to allow exact references. same as in SQL >>> autoincrement primary keys... >>> And I rather place them inside a field because I like them to be more >>> "invisible" as they have no semantic meaning. >>> >>> However I took a closer look at you example in your space and it is a >>> really nice workaround you are using, I mean exploiting the masking-title >>> of the link as a variable to use it in a local macro. >>> >>> This way I could do something like >>> >>> {{ 415241 | id }} >>> >>> and put the filter in the macro instead of directly writing >>> >>> {{{ [field:id[]!has[draft.of]first[]] }}} >>> >>> that will make a nice shortcut... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, June 2, 2014 3:30:38 PM UTC+2, Stephan Hradek wrote: >>>> >>>> I can't see a fundamental difference between my alias approach and >>>> using IDs. Except that ID's tend to be unreadable. >>>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeremy Ruston >> mailto:[email protected] >> > -- Jeremy Ruston mailto:[email protected] -- 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/d/optout.
