Expanding on...
> However, using a JSON construct will definitely be an entirely different
> approach over using what could be called classic sections...
>
Again, perhaps total overkill, but if JSON was the way to go, here's an
idea for implementing JSON based sections...
<!--§§
{
"sections": {
"foo": {
"text": "blablabla"
"status": "approved"
},
"bar": {
"text": "mumble mumble",
"tags": "[[really?]] [[wow]]"
"modified": "ok, that goes too far, but maybe not, after all,
why not?!? the adapter could be quite generic"
}
}
§§-->
Et voilà! The magic of hidden sections. ;-)
By all means, compared to classic section handling, that's perhaps a whole
different ballpark.
But it's probably a lot easier to handle / index / manipulate
computationally.
You certainly don't want users to edit this stuff in the text editor.
So I wouldn't even load it there ...but remember while editing the main body
and then provide a section editor for each section, only one instance per
tiddler at a time.
What would also be thinkable are hidden dictionary "sections" in usual
tiddlers, like so...
<!--##
foo:bar
baz:mumble
frotz:gronk
##-->
Either way, I'd only process one instance each of sections or dictionary
JSON per tiddler. After all, there's no need to have more of them, so any
matching algorithm would only take care of the first instances.
Best wishes, 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/d/optout.
