Thanks again
I have to comment on your statment:
It's actually much much harder, since this is against the TW design
priciple, where "everything is a tiddler". So accassing lists of tiddlers
is easy, because TW knows about tiddlers but it doesn't know much about the
tiddler content atm.
Just because it is a design principle does mean it is a good idea. Writing
documents has evolved over the centuries to a particular form. This
includes various sections within the document that perform specific
functions, e.g. table of contants, index, bibliography, and the subject of
my query a glossary. A well written document includes these. Whilst they
are not appropriate for all documents, for many they are essentail.
TiddlyWiki is a very good idea, but as soon as you try to use it to
documention anything of a technical nature, these sections become a
requirment that TiddlyWiki has a problem fullfilling.
When a design principle such as everything is a tiddler, prevents good
practice. It needs to be re-evaluated.
If TiddlyWiki is to become more than a curiousity used by a few, it needs
to address these points
Ciao Ric
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1980fbaf-8729-4750-8906-057daa03be15%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
