I develop my TW code inline; currently from a file, as there's a lot to do handling the upgrade to TW5, but hopefully, in the future, from the browser again. I would routinely save & reload a TW tens, and possibly hundreds of times in a coding session. This is going to be an much more unpleasant experience if I have to go back to the filesystem to open a new file after every save, as well as delete the large number of old and dysfunctional copies of the file which might be dangerous to leave around.
My yimao. Andrew. On Monday, 13 March 2017 01:01:50 UTC+11, @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 [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/3fe1288a-c6ce-4ef1-9a84-9145dc95fe70%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
