On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:37:04 PM UTC+1, Joe Armstrong wrote: > > ... >
> Having said that - a significant subset of tiddlers can be > made with simple transclusion and filters - it might be nice to > have a portable subset of tiddlers that did not do anything too fancy. > That's right. One power of TW syntax is transclusions, widgets, macros ..., which don't exist in most other wikis. ... But for example commonmark is defined in a way, that it only renders stuff that it understands. A syntax, that it doesn't understand is just written as plain text. So eg: **bold text,** <<macro-call>> .... In CM may be rendered as: *bold text, *<<macro-call>> Using TW it may be: *bold text,* some more text. The source code, is still human readable, and makes some sense. The rendered result is different, because the source contains some "fancyness" If a tiddler content only uses syntax, that both systems can understand, it would be interchangeable without any visual differences. -m -- 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/39462f7d-240b-41c2-9a2a-94d1996155b7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
