Hi Jeremy, thank you for this clarification. I understand and support your deliberate choice in this matter. I am new to TW and my overall understanding is still developing :)
That said, I apologize for bothering you with my newbie-opinions or questions, but from my understanding it is possible to have more than one unique-field that identifies a tiddler. Similar to SQL where I can have several unique attributes in a table that each could be used to identify a row. If a new tiddler is created, the system only needs to ensure that the title AND the id is unique. >From this point on, it is the decision of the user to reference the tiddler by id or by title. As written above, I have introduced this mechanism in my wiki and it works well. Providing a build-in alternative to a reference-by-title concept for those who want it would be a nice feature because links wouldn't break. Maybe it's not a common issue but I found a threat on stackexchange where a user had the same problem: http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/22850/changing-the-name-of-a-tiddler-in-tiddlywiki-and-retain-the-references-pointing In any case, I fully support your choice to use the title as unique identifier and if TW internals do not allow the introduction of such a parallel-concept then it is totally fine. I think TW is great and offers much flexibility either way! So thank you for your work and your previous answers. Greetings Felix On Monday, June 2, 2014 6:46:26 PM UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > 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] <javascript:> > -- 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.
