It’s clear that users want to be able to write/paste long passages of text into a tiddler and then individually address sections (or slices/chunks). In practice, I think that means that anything that one can presently do to an entire tiddler needs to be possible with a slice: transclusion, linking, searching, etc.
That means that the system has to deal with two levels of granularity: slices and entire tiddlers. Internally, everywhere that we manipulate tiddlers we’d need to support slices too. In fact, slices would become the fundamental unit; an entire tiddler would be a special case of a slice covering the entire tiddler. That’s where things get interesting: now we’ve redefined a slice to be a tiddler (which is just what we call a fundamental discrete unit of content in TiddlyWiki). Now, for performance reasons, we’d want to avoid repeatedly scanning tiddlers to extract the slices; instead, we’d want to store the individual slices separately so that we can efficiently address them as needed. You can probably see where this goes: we’ve just ended up *renaming* “tiddlers” to “slices”, and adding facilities to deal with sequences of slices as discrete entities called “tiddlers”. That’s pretty much where we are today: it’s easy to combine several tiddlers to make them appear to be a single tiddler: we use transclusion, or macros based on transclusion like the TOC macro. We’ve still got the problem of dealing with long passages of text: that’s where the text-slicer plugin comes in, showing one way that these long texts can be split into chunks, and the chunks recombined in flexible ways. So, my position isn’t ideological, nor am I wilfully ignoring feedback from users. But I am asserting that from an engineering perspective it’s cleaner and more efficient to be dealing with a single fundamental entity, and to approach the original problem from the other end: by splitting and recombining. Best wishes Jeremy > On 8 Jun 2016, at 14:27, Jed Carty <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am a bit stuck at the moment because while I don't want to discourage any > exploration into different ways of using TiddlyWiki there is a TW5 way of > doing what you are talking about, which is to use either more tiddlers or > fields which you then place wherever you want them using transclusions. > > Using templates you could have the anchor tag part of the transclusion so you > could navigate to a spot in an open tiddler. If you want to be able to both > open a tiddler and navigate to some spot in that tiddler than we would need a > more complex macro but it may be able to be done using only wikitext and > simple html. Or we may need to make an action widget that does the same > action as clicking on a normal link. > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki > <https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/097acf29-8df9-45aa-8618-f9c4216a2226%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/097acf29-8df9-45aa-8618-f9c4216a2226%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/66FD1495-5136-4477-9542-4FA218F5E1AF%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
