Hi Mat,
(Dunce-hat!? I'm but a beautiful cone head
> <https://www.google.se/search?q=cone+head&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1xOHZqK3MAhVrAZoKHTzbAjoQsAQIGw&biw=1366&bih=653>!
>
> )
>
Ah, I see, sorry, showing my age here again.
> The no-server-needed was definitely what enabled me to begin using TW.. If
> some server based or server interactive solutions came up, that did not
> take away the current TW format but worked as a parallel fork, I'd be fine
> with that too. Were additional multi-file offline solutions to come, beyond
> the nodejs version we have, I'd be fine with that too. I'm not saying I'd
> use any of them, I don't know that - but of course TW would reach a larger
> user base and likely attract even more competence, brains, solutions, and
> ideas that cross-pollinate and bring benefit also for the current TW.
>
On that we can totally agree. I don't use Node.js at all. I have used
GitHub to host a TW instance, and had to deal with tiddlers as individual
files in that setup, similar to the way Node.js does. I currently have
several TWs hosted on Dropbox, which I'm not a fan of either, but I use it
because that's what the *{{DesignWrite}}* course uses currently. Beyond
that, as long as any future developments of TiddlyWiki don't impinge on the
single-file nature of the TWs I use, I'm all for other people being able to
use TW the way they want to. I see no problem with the co-existance of both
single-file and server-based TiddlyWiki development.
Hegart.
--
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/62c540f0-5939-4de5-b81a-986da9b170b8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
