Josiah,
I understand this is important to you and I support your endeavour, however
it is less important to me. One reason is what I have already done the
following for myself using CSS and searching.
For example
in My StyleSheet I define Question .q and Answer .a (and more of course)
.q { color: orange;
}
.a { color: blue;
}
Then there is a multitude of places I can add .q or .a to indicate a question
or answer, you can do more by introducing font awesome, in the css to introduce
letters and symbols.
My Favourite is
;.q a question
:.a and answer
I then have a Q&A tiddler containing
!!Tiddlers containing one or more questions
<<list-links filter:"[!is[system]search[.q ]] -[[Q&A]] -[[MyStylesheet]]">>
!!Tiddlers containing one or more answers
<<list-links filter:"[!is[system]search[.a ]] -[[Q&A]] -[[MyStylesheet]]">>
And a Footer in view template which lists all Q&As when found in a tiddler
Note:The count is not working correctly
<$list filter="[all[current]search[.q ]limit[1]]" variable=null>
@@.q Tiddler contains (
<$list filter="[all[current]search[.q ]]" variable=null>
<$count filter="[all[current]search[.q ]]"></$count>+
</$list>) Question(s) @@
</$list> <$list filter="[all[current]search[.a ]limit[1]]" variable=null>
@@.a Tiddler contains (
<$list filter="[all[current]search[.a ]]" variable=null>
<$count filter="[all[current]search[.a ]]"></$count>+
</$list>) Answer(s)@@
</$list>
I suppose one point is in this case "." is the delimiter when used in certain
places, from there I have many characters or even full words I can use to
define almost anything which alters appearance once rendered and can be
searched for.
I do not feel constrained in anyway, and eventually I will create an Edit
Toolbar option to make things into Questions, Answers or Q&A Pairs.
and @@.q also works @@ inside text
To me this is *Making YOUR OWN Shorthand Markup SYSTEM [and it is] simple in TW
too.*
I do not feel my options have all being eaten.
Can you give a few simple yet specific examples you would like available to you?
Regards
Tony
On Sunday, 17 December 2017 04:41:22 UTC+11, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> This is almost a manifesto (*I may change my mind tomorrow*). But I hope
> it will ring some bells.
>
> 1 - SCEPTICISM
>
> I'm sceptical WikiText & other current simple markup and Markdown systems
> are anything special. Their utility lays in that they aren't: MEANING, they
> are foundations but not the final building.
>
> That does NOT mean that I think SHORTHAND is not relevant. It IS. Very.
> But is should be a DODDLE (very easy) of improvisation, not a labour of
> slavery to the past.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Making YOUR OWN Shorthand Markup SYSTEM should be simple in TW too. It
> isn't. It could be.*
>
> *IMO USER shorthand markup is the way ahead that addresses what MD and
> WikiText lack and which TiddlyWiki can provide EASILY.*
>
> When Gruber introduced Markdown (MD) it was a very elegant solution to
> formatting EMAIL. Gruber & Swartz reasoned that markup should allow plain
> texts to remain readable even when marked-up. Excellent aim.
>
> As long as your write nothing outside their syntax it works well still.
>
> And it covers about 20% of actual writing forms. Its excellent but VERY
> limited. NOW.
>
> A problem, not noted much about Wiki markup systems generally, is the
> FINITE number of special universal characters available that make visually
> semantic sense.
>
> This is very clear with markers like "*" "#" and "_". They had semantic
> resonance before the web as markers. If you look at the simpler markup
> systems you'll quickly see they hit a limit where they can't find any new
> characters that have the semantic clarity of those Founding Glyphs.
>
> Basically All Decent Characters have been eaten already. So "simple
> markup" (READABLE) became "more complex markup" (LESS READABLE) anyway.
>
> That *symbolic paucity of available characters on the keyboard has itself
> limited growth of simple markup IMO *to its detriment. It has not kept up
> with webby expression well.
>
> A long time has passed. The net is way ahead of the original intent of
> those systems now. And MD's LIMITED scope is now as much about EATING IT,
> DIGESTING it INTO other more EXPANSIVE formats. Its a BIT of something
> else. It is NOT a* Ding an sich* to do simpler markup in real usage. Its
> a mixture. A morph. a mash-up. A blend. A MORE THAN it.
>
> In other words MD is a limited formatting system with good utility still
> for limited objectives. Its boring. Clean(ish). And easily supported. And
> NEEDS extensions it itself does not support to be credit worthy.
>
> Maybe more later.
>
> Josiah
>
>
>
>
--
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/eab5482f-4947-4962-92a7-04b4abc2d7cd%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
