Thanx for input Jed! Someone brought up the idea of using tiddlywiki as a sort of distributed > social networking platform. I think it was in one of the hangouts.
I'm not sure I cought that bit but, yes, there's definitely a social aspect to this. *I think that you should at least include the option to use iframes (I > think you were the one working on that), that way you could deal with very > heavily modified wikis that may not display well with your css layer. > I'm hoping people will bring up more alternatives because iframes carry some very limiting restrictions for this (I think). I actually do have an already working(!) solution for how to get tiddlers from iframes but don't want to mention it before others bring up some suggestions and thoughts (...even if my programming skills are a definite clue). But maybe you're skilled with iframes? How can you for instance pick out a single tiddler? AFAIK there is no identifier on a tiddler element and as I understand it one must specify precise location. *I think that there shouldn't be a single "aggregation appstore", but that > you could have wikis that act as servers/directories that list other > available wikis on a specific topic. So if you had a wiki you wanted to > share you could submit your wikis information to one of the server wikis > and it could be listed there, then if someone wanted to add your wiki to > their list they could use some identifying nameplate type thing that would > contain the required information to get tiddlers from your wiki. > Yes, I meant what you are saying. I'm not suggesting a "single aggregation appstore", that was just an example of someones TW wherefrom I might want to pick out things. However, such an appstore would itself also possibly use the solution I'm after here, i.e to include tiddlers from other TWs. You bring up the issue with people possibly not wanting others to include their tiddlers. This is also something that shoudl be dealt with, but it would be *extremely* limiting and unfortunate if the default requirement would be to have to ask for permission, effectively forcing everyone to search around and contact people etc. Actually it would probably disable the whole system becaue you couldn't include across several steps then, like in the illustration, unless the leftmost guys gave full permission for "anything". *If possible it would be good to be able to set some sort of encryption > that only let people you had given your nameplate to to actually see your > wiki, or limit which parts were public. > Yes, some kind of locking mechanism is probably a very good idea for when you don't want inclusion possible. The nameplate (i.e identification, right?) seems to be a separate idea but a possible later extension. Thanks for the input. What do you say - woudn't you find this concept very valuable? The closest we have is tiddlyspaces inclusion mechanism which obviously is an absolute key feature there. <:-) -- 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.
