Ciao Mark S. Thanks for GOOD questions.
For movie scripts outputs MUST follow the format to have any chance. The spec is precise. This is why you must have access to a physical print-out to mail that follows the convention, NOT a GUESS. OR an exactly laid out PDF could do. I think TW can do that natively. But it needs thought yet. Josiah On Thursday, 31 August 2017 17:09:00 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote: > > Working out what you want in a parser in terms of inputs and outputs is a > good idea. > > I'm wondering what the point of this exercise would be? How would you use > the outputs? My experience with all things HTML is that it doesn't print > out reliably. So you probably couldn't depend on it to produce physical > manuscripts. So, unless you could convince directors/actors/reviewers to > read scripts on their tablets (hmm, maybe they already do this?) what > would be the benefit of using TW? > > Have fun, > Mark > > > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:17:48 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> TonyM >> >> The aim is implicitly voiced in the other thread this emerged from ... >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/9Lf0YHfMUZk ... but >> it needs work to get it optimised for TW, IMO. >> >> Looking at Fountain <https://fountain.io/syntax>, that thread deals with >> its markup system for screenplays--I think it could be simplified for TW a >> lot. >> >> The UNDERLYING ISSUE is whether a "deep level" Javascript parser *(and >> likely a new "content type") *is needed OR whether you can get away with >> a more surface level set of regular expressions. The RegEx I can sorta cope >> with. The Javascript I can't. >> >> The BASIC markup I'm thinking is only this ... >> >> :x >> >> Each LINE started by a colon and a letter code is parsed and wrapped in >> different CSS classes. >> >> Right now I'm trying to establish the tech needs for this. >> >> PMario opined it wasn't possible without JavaScript coding. >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> >> >> >> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 14:57:20 UTC+2, TonyM wrote: >>> >>> Just a question. Why build a parser when there are ways to parse the >>> content in a tiddlywiki already. I would have thought What is it you want >>> to achieve is best voiced first. >>> >>> Ok, maybe I don't get it but I expect the same could be said for >>> theatrical script writing as well unless it is critical to import a >>> different markup in which case you could work on the import and export >>> process instead. >>> >>> Food for thought? >>> >>> Otherwise clueless >>> Tony >>> >>> -- 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/cd1e7ac0-228e-4e45-b7ac-38ff207296ec%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
