Hi Jeremy, Starting with the naming convention, why is this field called "_canonical_uri" and not something friendlier and easier to type like "imagepath" ?
It seems to me that the _canonical_uri field and image works OK once you have it set up. The problem for Windows people is figuring out how the browser wants path to files that are not subdirectories of the TW. The first actual problem is that node.js doesn't serve up images. Suddenly everything gets messy and you end up with long paths to images on a different server address that may have to change whenever the computer reboots. The second problem is that there is no way to simply set a base address for all _canonical_uri images. Instead, you have to overwrite the _canonical_uri field of all the images every time you change servers, convert to stand-alone, or move the images. If there was a way to set a base address, then a user could simply change a configuration tiddler to point to the new base, and all the images would be available without having to write new paths. Thinking about it more, it would be good if different sets of tiddlers could reference different base paths. So the image tiddlers might have an additional field "imageconfig" that would specify the name of the tiddler containing the base path for the tiddler. This would solve another problem. Currently, if you want to use the externalizing process, all the files will end up in one directory. But someone like Edward, with 300 images, is likely to want to move them into sub-directories. Currently each image in a subdirectory would need the relative path added to its title. So instead of "My_Little_Ponies", you end up with "XYZ201510/My_Little_Ponies". Not quite as friendly. You could of course have a _canonical_uri that points to a different place without changing the tiddler title, but then you could never run the external process without overwriting the custom _canonical_uri fields. Thanks! Mark On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 2:27:42 AM UTC-7, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > Hi Tobias > > The current `_canonical_uri` method appears a bit problematic in more than > one way, > starting with the naming convention for that field. > Perhaps it's not the worst idea to deprecate this field and how it works > today. > > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn't all of the confusion around the > _canonical_uri field stem from the limitations imposed by browsers? In all > of the discussion I don’t think there’s been any proposals for anything > that we could do differently that would meaningfully impact the limitations. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy. > > > > Best wishes, > > — tb > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/571e911c-023a-4783-ba16-be170d2986f2%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/571e911c-023a-4783-ba16-be170d2986f2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d87c1e87-e221-4795-95e6-30e8e22f2d0b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
