> I think the best place to put tiddlywiki plugins is npm. > [...] > Obviously this is not for the users that access tiddlywiki from > tiddlywiki.com, but for all people that uses the node-js version this > will be the desired way. >
That thing is one definite restriction. So it would be not be a solution for vanilla TW. ...Or could it be made into one? But, more, questions arise in my head: Who has / what is the incentive to add plugins there? Who has / what is the incentive to maintain it, e.g remove dead stuff Is there a front UI to it, ideally in TW, that is made for mortals who simply want a frickin' wiki for their food recipes without having anything to do with "noje.js, npm, github, command windows, ..." I'm not sure why, but on tiddlywiki community there is a is a trend towards > re-inventing the wheel, creating everything from the ground up. I don't see > the problem on using battle tested industry wide accepted solutions. And > having tiddlywiki plugins on a fantastic highly scalable delivery mechanism > like npm is something good. > As hinted, I think it is much a matter of UI and target audience. At lest in this forum, it seems to me that most people are not coders. And IMO they shouldn't have to be, to use TW. I must assume that is the point with WikiText. So things are re-invented but from a TW perspective and probably from ignorance of what already exists. <:-) -- 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/cb59fffb-a8dd-4872-b4ae-fabada80cdc3%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
