Riz wrote:
1. Organization: Having documentation alone will not do. It must be
> organized under titles and subtitles and so and so.
>
I disagree; consider any internet search engine for example. The idea to
put everything in a pretty tree structure was abandoned decades ago. In the
latest hangout we even discussed the problems with a structure for the TW
controlpanel.
In fact, a key idea in TW is the non-linearity. Instead it relies on
linking and we could use community *tagging *to categorizing things. In
TW2, there was a plugin called the tagsplorer macro where you, if I recall,
typed in or selected a tag (say "Foo") and this made you see a list of..
NOT the tiddlers tagged such, but the tags *of *those tiddlers. You then,
among those tags, selected a second tag ("Bar") to again get a smaller list
of all tags from tiddlers being tagged both Foo and Bar... etc. Parallel to
this was a list showing the actual tiddlers tagged with all the selected
tags. ...I'm just giving this as an example of how one can find stuff
rather effectively without pretty trees.
2. Scalability. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that the
> scalability of an effort like Twederation will be difficult beyond a point.
> Shouldn't we opt for a solution that has the ability to expand?
>
Well, the *main *idea is just that it shoudl be possible to transfer
tiddlers between tiddlywikis. This idea is not bound to any particular
implementation, IMO. The current implementation probably has limitations
but there can be multiple, and parallel, solutions. The enormous benefit to
have the documentation in tiddlers, as opposed to e.g some mediawiki or
other system, is that you can use the documentation just like other
tiddlers - slice'n dice, manipulate etc.
3. Learning curve. For someone who is new to TW5, Twederation will be yet
> another thing he will have to learn, however simple it is being made into.
> This introduces the same hurdle that makes github not ideal. While we might
> not be able to make the process of creating documentation completely
> familiar, we should atleast provide a way to access the documentation on a
> familiar UI.
>
*Any *new system would have a learning curve. But something like Github is
beyond our control... and more interestingly, it is beyond* your* control.
TW is to a great extent within *your *control! I know of no other
documentation infrastrucuture where we can so freely change the UI if it is
not to liking. If you "know TW" then the learning curve to "know
TWederation" should probably not be that tricky... since it is built in TW.
Jed, who has done the absolute majority of the actual coding, has been
careful to make things "native TW5" in TWederation. But again, this is just
the current implementation. And it is not yet good enough for general use.
>
> 4. What if someone deletes his TW5? Will a copy of the documentation
> persist somewhere or will it be lost? Since twederation is not a
> client-server type setting, I guess not? If it will not persist, it means
> the whole structure of documentation becomes volatile. If it does, where
> will it stored?
>
Fetching means to copy what you want. At least in curren implementation.
There can also be a community aggregation for someting as important as
docs, i.e it can be an aggregating place much like tiddlywiki.com
5. Asking people to submit documentation is one thing, asking them to give
> access to a file that resides in their hard-drive is another. Call me
> paranoid.
>
In current implementation; Only access to public data. Nobody shares things
they don't want to.
6. The whole system depends on current browser security I assume. If they
> become stringent tomorrow, what will happen?
>
What else will happen tomorrow?
7. Yours is a voluntary effort. I am not in anyway questioning you guys'
> commitment to the project of Twederation, but what if at a point tomorrow
> life makes it hardly possible to maintain the project of Twederation?
>
I hope you see how this has been answered implicitly in the previous
replies.
I understand that people will not submit documentation eagerly. Hence the
> suggestion to make it a community agreement that if users get a
> satisfactory solution for their problem from the group, they will simply
> write it up and file it under the appropriate heading.
>
Yes! Go ahead! :-)
...or, let me save you sime time: Ain't gonna happen. Not that I wouldn't
want it to happen but it has proven to simply not work, for several
reasons. Besides, if people did already get the solution "from the group"
i.e here on the boards(!) ...then it is already here and you can find it
here. OR you can look at it another way; What you ask for is already being
done! That is partly how documentation comes to tiddlywiki.com. Everyone is
grateful if you contribute to it even more.
Hope this has answered some of your question.
<:-)
--
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/2a6fb6d2-637c-458f-918d-3faab61443d9%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
