Josiah, You seem to be pushing for something which you see as inconvenient without appreciating the underlying complexities involved, which as a "naive" user myself, I can only guess at. I just think that if there was a quick fix to this issue, Jeremy would have already introduced it.
Regards Jon On Sunday, 12 March 2017 14:01:50 UTC, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > *Here is a discussion I and Jeremy Ruston started, privately, on Twitter. > We realised that it could just as well be public in case anyone else wants > to read / comment ... * > > *Josiah, 1... * > Are we all doomed to have to give up on simple download file-saving? > > Do you know if the excellent TiddlyFox 2 will still work after the ominous > Firefox 57? > > WHY do Mozilla take so LONG approving add-ons? > > WHY do you keep TiddlyFox on Mozilla add-ons marked as "Experimental"? > > Best wishes > Josiah > > > *Jeremy, 1...* > By “simple download file saving” do you mean the default fall back HTML 5 > saver? I’ve no idea about Firefox 57. I’ve no idea why Mozilla do what they > do. I mark it experimental to save it going through Mozilla’s more rigorous > full review. > > > *Josiah, 2...* > Ciao Jeremy. I guess where I am coming from is as a "naive" user (well, > I'm pretending to be one & try stay in that skin a bit). > > I'm trying to get my head round the stumbling blocks to better uptake of > TW. > > No. On "saving" I mean what TiddlyFox does brilliantly, simply. Overwrite. > The fallback behaviour of save(1) save(2) is not viable, IMO, for most > folk. > > On Mozilla ... on everything I read they are internally confident in what > they are doing ... just about everything else is like witnessing shooting > into the foot. It all gets too convoluted. > > I now understand why you keep it "experimental". From a naive user point > of view its a slight put-off. I'm not sure but does the latest v1 still > work in FF 52. 57 is when they say they will go wholly WebExtensions: Firefox > 57 - Compatability Milestone > <https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firefox-57-compatibility-milestones/> > > *Jeremy, 2...* > Here’s the thing: all the difficulties in getting started with TiddlyWiki > stem from the single file architecture. It’s fiddly and unfamiliar to most > people. The simple fix is to move it to an online service, when all those > problems melt away. Simple. If on the other hand, anyone wants the > considerable advantages of working offline without a server, well, then > TiddlyWiki is the only thing on the planet that can help them, and it comes > with a learning curve. That’s life. > > *Jeremy, 3...* > My sense is that you are pushing to find a way for the standalone HTML > file experience to match the ease of use of an online service. I don’t > think that’s possible. > -- 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. 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/0f33e825-fa5b-4866-983a-3a840156aef9%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
