Ciao Mark S You make great points.
IMO USE CASES are seriously currently UNDERDONE compared to other software. I guess in back of my mind are questions about USAGE. I think a VERY good example is how to post to social networks. Something I consider basic. In theory everything is there in TW that allows posting via the URI mechanisms. Actually doing it with properly URI formatted URLS is another story. I tried. I failed. I'm lacking the documentation I'd need. Best wishes Josiah On Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:09:15 UTC+1, Mark S. wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > Responses to various points -- > > There probably need to be 3 document paths: User, Advanced User, Developer. > > Each bit of documentation could include the version it was written for. > Then the reader could decide if what they're reading is applicable. > > Adding better use-cases would be much more tempting with a MediaWiki (or > some other Wiki/Blogging tool). > > Github is a pain, but not as much as waiting 6 to 12 weeks to see your > stuff submitted. > > A MediaWiki type solution would allow people to get stuff out there while > attention spans are still focused. Then no one could deny they said > (promised?) it. > > When TiddlyFox stops working, you should be able to save with the > fall-back mechanism, which operates as a series of downloads. For any one > session it feels just like it does now. But when you start a new session, > you need to copy over the last TW you saved to your starting folder/site. I > can imagine a script of some type helping to automate the process. > > Probably coming up with a good workflow will be important for beginners > when the changes occur. The thing to understand is that, since the very > beginning, TW has been doing something that's considered a no-no in the > security world: Saving copies of itself to the hard drive. In the past it > used various loop-holes, developer's backdoors, java code and extensions. > Over time the browser developers have become more serious about security > and having been closing the loop-holes. > > I doubt the confusing code elements are going to change, because too much > of the system has been built on them. But having documentation that > highlights these ambiguities would allow users to more readily thread their > way through DIY solutions. > > Pax, > Mark > > > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 6:56:02 AM UTC-8, David Gifford wrote: >> >> I want to affirm Josiah and Riz's frustration, from someone who has done >> introductory documentation for TW classic (TiddlyWiki for the rest of us) >> and the current TiddlyWiki (which you can still find on tiddlywiki.com, >> and which I added via Github, and Github was a miserable experience for me. >> I still don't get it). >> >> -- 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/1ea0967e-44b7-431e-9159-95b515606e98%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
