Hi Alberto, > > 1. Tabs fields: fields like *filter* and *template* have changed to > *list.filter* and *list.template*, and other fields have been added. > > Perhaps use a more specific *mt* prefix, e.g. *mt.filter*?
Its very easy: if you create a tiddler tagged $:/tabs/foo, it will appear > as a bottom tab in every tiddler tagged $:/type/foo and only there (unless > you choose to have it as a default tab, and you can do that with the tag > $:/action/is/default, or go to the control panel, under appearance and > magic tabs tweaks). > I explain how to create custom new types and tabs in 5 easy tabs here: > http://youtabs.tiddlyspot.com/ > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutabs.tiddlyspot.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE0MHdJdh229zGaOMMkBuzvz0JgZA> Not sure what to make of this strategy in terms of... *Type video: *Add the tag $:/type/video to the video tiddlers. In this > case: Introduction To TiddlyWiki > *Type annotation: *Add the tag $:/type/annotation to the annotation > tiddlers. Why would I need an additional type tag? Isn't there a filter expression that corresponds to what makes a tiddler of type *$:/type/video* or *$:/type/annotation* or any other type? How about something more implicit, like... *$:/type/**field/**yt-id* ...without a need to declare some otherwise unneeded extra tags for magic-tabs? And then have ... *contents.by.field: $:/type/field/yt-video* ...perhaps. The thing is, do I need / also want those *$:/type/video* and *$:/type/annotation *tags now and does that mean that I also need to overwrite the tags template? I was surely considering of abandoning the yt-video field as it seems much more natural to have the annotation simply tag to the video, but then I have the problem that a simple tagging relationship isn't a qualified one. Also, if I kept something like *yt-video* as a qualified field then there is that problem with generally distinguishing *yt-video* vs. *yt-videos*... because, the latter would require a bracketed list like the tags field and all the handling that goes with dissecting those bracketed list-items whereas the *yt-video* field as a reference to a single *parent* does not have any double square brackets and would probably fail if I wrapped those tiddler titles in them. So, how do you harmonize these relations ships such that 1:1 is working exactly like a 1:many in terms of how the data is being kept, i.e. by entering that related tiddler via a "browse for some tiddler" popup just like we have for tags? Mhhh, loads of further exploring and architectural design is needed, it appears. I mean, hw would you handle the case where a tiddler would have two parents, sources, etc...? 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.
