Am Sonntag, 2. November 2014 23:08:48 UTC+1 schrieb Yakov: > > > I use this heavily with CSS in TWc, the options you propose are too long > to write each time >
That's why I said: You can create a macro for that. <<myClass "text">> isn't so much more to write. You just have to once create a macro \define myClass(text) <span class="myClass">$text$</span> Or a more generic one: <<class "myClass" "text">> \define class(myclass, text) <span class="$myclass$">$text$</span> > (I use them for different semantic highlightning). I've heard about some > kind of "definitions" which allow to define new syntaxes like old-school > "+++[label]stuff===" for sliders etc, but I don't remember the name of the > mechanism.. Can anyone help with that? > rules? > They are needed for referencing and sharing links. The trick you propose > is ok, although it requires more clicks (while with proper keyboard > shortcuts permalink method requires only one). After all, one more icon > wouldn't hurt, I guess. > One more icon for your permalinks, one more icon for pining tiddlers, one more icon for... whatever... You see: Every icon is "just one more" and I think there shouldn't be more than three, at most five. I like the current simplicity and after all: All this can be tweaked so that you have it. > >> I disagree. But you're free to tweak the templates to your likings. >> > > Well, if you don't provide arguments, it sounds like you disagree for the > sake of disagreement > I disagree because I like the current simplicity and I like the fact that it's not too difficult to tweak almost everything about TW5. I do not think that we should change the current vanilla TW5 which is here for, well, almost 3 years now. > (considering the rest of you response). > considering your post, I got the impression that you didn't look too much into TW5 but simply hoped to have an updated TWc. Sorry when I'm doing you wrong. > for now, the EditTemplate is not simple at all and it's much more > complicated (or piled, it's better to say) than that of TWc... > That's your view. I can't remember too many complains about it in the last 2 years. But let's wait what others think. > > I haven't explored it fully (may be there's more power behind templates > than I know for now); when there's no distinguishing of sub-data, I won't > expect that it's possible to build some representation for it. An example > of what I mean: > [...] > > and I aggregate values of slices for different pupils into different > (interactive) tables. On the other hand, sometimes I open tiddlers of > certain pupils to see and analyse different stuff, so I need these to be in > the tiddler text (not in the rather hidden fields). > Maybe Datatiddlers http://tiddlywiki.com/#DataTiddlers are sufficient? The representation is not as nice as a table, but I think they should give you all the rest. But you can as well stick to fields if you create an edit template for you pupils. See for example my (a bit outdated) simple "Person DB" on http://tw5magick.tiddlyspot.com/ > > >>> 7. when I add a tag or a field and then press esc (cancel), no prompt >>> like "are you sure that you'd like to abandon the changes" is displayed. >>> >> >> And that's good! >> >> My opinion is different because this increases a possibility of > unexpected data loss; the behaviour can be made switchable via settings as > well. > How much would you loose? 1 word? I think it would be better to add the Return-key here for entering a tag. After all: Esc is usually for leaving something without changing values. -- 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.
