Hi Jeremy again, Jeremy Ruston wrote:
OK, you’re describing what I think of as the “GUID approach”. It’s a nice > pattern, and definitely resonates with a lot of users. I don’t see it as > requiring a major change to the TW core design, though: it’s predominantly > high level UI entities that would need to change (eg the edit template). > Personally, I’m not a huge fan because of the unreadability of link > targets, but I’d like TW5 to support it for those that want it. > I really appreciate how you approached this issue. Part of user-base has found ways around this and don't consider it painful at all. Nevertheless you are still listening (to novice voices) and are open to find some solution. I would like to kindly ask you for driving (managing) the changes. There are many good reasons: you are the father of TiddlyWiki, the architect, you can balance between the pros/cons and see the consequences. This feels like a false dichotomy. “Changing the system” implies that it > wouldn’t work in the way that it does currently, which would be a problem > from a backwards compatibility perspective. Perhaps the option is better > expressed as “augment the system so it can work as described above”. > Yes, I know. I intentionally created this high level of contrast to push this further. Honestly, I went trough many similar discussions (as @PMario points here as well) and get completely lost - there was no real solution, ever. Even if many members tried their best to solve it reasonably (including you). I felt internally (this is solely my own opinion) that it is caused by missing support at the core - the basic building blocks lack some functionality. In another words: all the workarounds were trying (with some degree of success) to fix something that the core was supposed to do by design. Once again - I have no technical knowledge - this is solely based on what I read from discussions and what I had a chance to try as a solution. I'm telling you this with full respect to your excellent job and the brilliant idea that lasts for years. But if you want to focus on implementation difficulty, option (a) touches > many components of the system while (b) is a self-contained subsystem with > well defined inputs and outputs. My experience suggests that the complexity > of a software task depends primarily on the number of entities involved, > and so I would be inclined to think of option (b) as being less difficult. > To ease this discussion: like from a fairy-tale: "Which path you choose is solely in your hands. We are with you, captain! The community is hanging on your lips to follow you." Best wishes to you, Jeremy. Petr -- 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/3909b74f-6e51-462f-9c26-c2d3000f0416%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
