Mario,
It is interesting you say "*TW has tables that imo are more powerful"* The
reason I say this is because only recently I came to discover exactly how
much of HTML is usable right in wikitext and tiddlywiki. Here is a working
example with a list widget in it.
<table style="width:100%; align: left; ">
<caption>Monthly savings</caption>
<tr>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Caption</th>
<th style="align: right;">Icon</th>
</tr>
<$list filter="[tags[Resources]]">
<tr>
<td>{{!!title}}</td>
<td>{{!!caption}}</td>
<td text-align: right;>{{!!icon}}</td>
</tr>
</$list>
<tr>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Caption</th>
<th >Icon</th>
</tr>
</table>
My Point is that html markup is often more powerful when dealing with more
sophisticated objects such as tables and simplifies the creation process
because elements are more easily duplicated and there is rudimentary error
checking and structure, CSS insertion points etc..
To me HTML is an essential skill and I see no harm choosing it when it
suits. With all the talk of alternate markup/down I hope we do not
compromise TiddlyWikis direct relationship to the pervasive standards on
the internet such as HTML/CSS especially since that is how the tiddlywiki
is rendered.
Theoretically would most markdown standards have documented processes to
markup up and down to/from HTML? If this was the case could we take any
HTML and apply any markdown to it?
My idea is we could produce any content that you can see on the screen,
Wiki Text, HTML, and any that works in Tiddlywiki, it is then rendered in
HTML and then generate markdown texts that can then be transferred into
their own tools.
An Example is I would Create a chapter in TiddlyWiki using any method I
choose, Display it (HTML) then choose to generate Wiki media markdown which
I then save, copy or paste into Wiki Media. Perhaps we could harvest
content in HTML from anywhere, Save it in Tiddlywiki and generate
alternative markdown from it, even to its orignnal mark down.
The all we have to do is translate any markdown to HTML and back to any
markdown. Which presumably is already done for most markdown formats.
Am I making sense?
Tony
On Friday, 15 December 2017 02:50:44 UTC+11, PMario wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 12:34:27 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>> Rather than CommonMark wouldn't Github Flavoured Markdown (GFM) be a
>> better aim? Its ...
>>
>
> Nope. ... markdown is standardized now. (since ~ March 2016) ...
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763
>
>
> Variants spec: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7764#page-10
>
> - GFM is one of several variants
> - CommonMark is an other variant ...
>
>>
>> 1. compliant with CommonMark;
>>
>> that's ok, but It's different
>
>
>>
>> 1. adds tables and other things Markdown does not do;
>>
>> TW has tables that imo are more powerful
>
>
>>
>> 1. better services existing TW users who also use GitHub.
>>
>> IMO no problem, we can have several variants. eg: markdown-it library
> supports many variants already.
> We just need to switch the mime type and we can deal with them. ...
>
> I do have a finished plugin. ... I just have to prepare the edition.
> ... BUT ...
> I want to get rid of external libraries, most of the time, they don't
> integrate well with TWs possibilities.
>
> have fun!
> mario
>
--
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/3c8a617a-f567-4827-9de4-1638b9bd1138%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
