I'll try again, but my posts keep getting deleted...if anyone can help me
that it'd be appreciated...
I don't think it's right to characterise the problems as being with the
single file architecture, because I don't really see TW as a single file
architecture, any more than Excel. TW is a program and a data file, as is
Excel. The difference is that the program for TW is called the browser. We
think about the TW program as being that part of the data in the file that
gets executed, but that's really analogous to VBA code.
*Program* -
File
Excel
Application functions
Enables VBA -
user code (VBA, formulas); data
File IO
Browser
Enables JS -
application functions (JS, macros, widgets); user code (ditto); data
?FIle IO?
The problem occurs because the TW driving program, the browser, is not
longer fit for purpose. If Excel stopped saving spreadsheets, that'd
obviously be a pretty major disaster. TW, though, doesn't control the
browser, so we have to take our lumps when it does stop saving.
I switched to using Firefox for TW (from Chrome) because of the extension
which allowed overwrite saves. The save(n+1) option is rubbish; I mean it's
doable, obviously, but it is not convenient. It's not a user-winning
experience. If that goes, I guess I'll switch to using Tiddlyfox, which
seems to be OK. It's the program TW controls which can run TW and also
save. It's a pity to lose the "elegance" of running with a program that is
already readily available, but in terms of offline user experience ,
downloading a program, installing it and running it is not a big challenge
for most people.
I think the future will be TFox for standalone; browser for online; Node
for the minority; offline browser for the rest, and I don't really see a
problem with that. It's more user-friendly, IMO, than running TW on top of
a database. No matter how hard people work to make the underlying
technology transparent, I think the extra complexity will eventually show
up. I don't think that's the right place to invest the technical talent.
Cheers, 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 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/c64e3467-5937-4808-b033-636693b0ea86%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
