I don't understand why it's unwise to show both versions to new users. If they feel that TW5 is better, they'll use it, if TWc fits their needs, they can choose it instead. Moreover, I'm planning to attract new users to TWc once it's good enough (I've made a local meetup to present TWc and discussed up-to-date demands with a couple of users and can see some key issues now). What I see wise is to make a dedicated updatable comparison to show differences, advantages and disadvantages of both TW versions to help users make a concious choice, isn't it? (including limitations of both TWc and TW5 which are not frequently discussed, like SEO problems, load time, performance issues etc) I can see no reason to hide the legacy (aside additional efforts required for creating the full matrix).
Best regards, Yakov. четверг, 7 июня 2018 г., 1:53:30 UTC+3 пользователь TonyM написал: > > Yakov, > > We should not abandon TWC, and it should be mentioned in the TW5 table to > indicate the cross compatibility of hosting solutions. However I believe > TWC deserves its own matrix, and unwise to suggest to newbys to take that > path, we have job helping new people learn TW5 apart from TWC. Though TWC > should be supported by the community. > > Regards > Tony > > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:12:17 PM UTC+10, Yakov wrote: >> >> While information on migration would be useful too, I don't think it's >> unwise to show the TWc ecosystem (strictly speaking, its maintainance grew >> this year considerably with one new version and MainTiddlyServer >> <https://yakovl.github.io/MainTiddlyServer/> already released, and I >> have plans for more) and diminishing user-base may be a self-fulfilling >> forecast in this context (actually, those who join >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/tiddlywikiclassic sometimes say >> that "wow, I was not aware of this group and new released stuff" although >> the link is pinned on top in TiddlyWiki group). TWc still has some >> advantages (like smaller size, simpler plugin development process, no >> mobile-first-desktop-never desease and others) so it may have its own niche. >> >> I can certainly help with gathering information (or mostly sharing >> already gathered info) and I think that the >> >> introduce TWC as a qualifying filter before the "Saver, Server, Service, >>> Manager" >>> >> >> approach would be much nicer (otherwise things link MainTiddlyServer >> won't get a spot in the matrix at all). But it's up to you of'course. >> >> Best regards, >> Yakov. >> >> среда, 6 июня 2018 г., 4:28:10 UTC+3 пользователь TonyM написал: >>> >>> Mat, >>> >>> Whilst it would be nice to do this with TWC its options are very limited >>> compared to TW5 (although there are still many) perhaps instead flag TWC in >>> so far as does the "method" also support TWC as does TiddlyDesktop but >>> redirect others to the TWC Discussion thread and information on Migration. >>> I have just contributed to a thread on this here >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/tiddlywiki/L3p321qp7EU >>> >>> The truth is the future is with TW5 and although existing TWC users may >>> benefit from this information, I think it unwise to promote TWC as an >>> answer to someone entering the TW universe, for its reduced maintenance, >>> reduced futures and diminishing user base. >>> >>> Further, I love your work here, I wanted to do something similar but are >>> glad you have "taken this by the reigns", I plan to provide a community >>> resource and Expect this reference work will be key. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Tony >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:29:17 AM UTC+10, Mat wrote: >>>> >>>> Guys, just quickly; I have been, and will continue to be, busy for a >>>> few more days so difficult to work on this at the moment. >>>> >>>> But, regarding TWC on SetUp - sure, why not, if I can get some help if >>>> it is much work with it. What I mean is; >>>> >>>> If it is merely a matter of adding TWC as one of the criteria (i.e the >>>> top row) then it'd be easy-peasy. That would mean you click a name like >>>> "TWC-compatible" and see which SetUps that fulfill this... and from those >>>> identified SetUp-rows see what other criteria the respective SetUp >>>> features. >>>> >>>> The more ambitious solution would be to introduce TWC as a qualifying >>>> filter before the "Saver, Server, Service, Manager" and logically at that >>>> level, i.e so that every listed SetUp will have to fulfill TWC and >>>> whatever >>>> of "Saver, Server etc" that is ticked. This is not difficult to do but a >>>> little iffy. However, what I would need help with then is to have others >>>> bring in potential SetUps that are TWC specific and, again, the data for >>>> them. >>>> >>>> Another thought: >>>> I think the site would bring more value if it could add more info about >>>> individual setups. Obviously, not everything fits in the matrix and even >>>> if >>>> I've added some comments in the respective SetUp-tiddlers, there is often >>>> good stuff found in discussions on the boards. So, it would be useful to >>>> somehow collect data such that can be added. I'm considering accepting >>>> links to relevant discussions - or if someone other than me >>>> curates/refines >>>> info, then this could be added to the individual setups. (Oh, a project >>>> like this would be sooo spot-on for TWederation!!!) >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, please note I can't engage much in this for a few days. >>>> >>>> <:-) >>>> >>> -- 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/3c2d0f04-2d4b-49da-918a-41ffbca4c747%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
