I'm running out of time and I'm going to be late for work, but this work is more interesting...
I identified the following "problem" (not a bug, a feature!). In TW, ~ is used to cancel CamelCase. In Org, this is used to indicate a code line (similar to ` in TW). The issue is, as you might have guessed, to exclude CamelCases while writing in Org. If I use ~, Org would start a code block later in HTML; if I don't use it, I will have a bogus CameCase link. The work-around, for now, is to use verbatim in Org (= signs) as you write, which will result in <code> blocks in html. Find them in the html and delete them manually. So in Org: =~CamelCase cancel= in TW (after taking out the <code></code>): ~CamelCase. I wonder if HTML has a verbatim option similar to Org that is *not *<code>. Ugh, gotta go. gotta go... hope this makes sense. On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-4, Shay Shaked wrote: > > So seems like I answered my own question, mostly anyway, without > realizing. > > Since TW handles raw HTML rather well, it's rather easy to just export Org > to HTML to a buffer (in Emacs, this means it doesn't actually save as an > HTML file, it just throws the HTML code into another buffer, or another > "windows"). > In Org, one needs to include some formatting options previously according > to taste. For me, I need to get rid of the table of contents (created > automatically when exporting to HTML) and the numbers added to each header > (again, automatically). > > In Org-mode, this is done by including these options at the head of the > Org buffer: > > #+OPTIONS: toc:nil > #+OPTIONS: num:nil > > > > Then, when I export to HTML, I am only looking for the <body> tags and > copy what's between those. Paste into an empty TW window. Done. There's > even the added benefit that you don't have to keep saving the wiki and > overwriting your copy (which is needed in the new Firefox, even with some > of the plug-ins). You simply copy-paste until you're happy with the > results, and then save the wiki once. > > My only concern is that the format is completely HTML and not in TW > syntax, and I'm not sure if this is a problem or not. Another issue I can > think about is that I cannot link to other tiddlers and verify that the > link work (in TW, it would be in italics if the tiddler doesn't exist), but > that's just a small issue of one additional back and forth. Worth it for > the writing experience, imho of course. > > I think that, for now, I'm satisfied with what I found. That is, until I > try to write something later today or tomorrow... but I'm always the > pessimistic one. > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:06:34 AM UTC-4, Shay Shaked wrote: >> >> This looks very promising LDL, but it gives me an error (unknown keyword: >> export-block). This is in line 47 in ox-tiddly.el. I'm no programmer, but >> it looks like "export block" is outdated and needs to be updated to >> whatever the new syntax is. >> >> As for the discussion going on with Tony and Mark, it is interesting... >> but not sure it's part of this topic (which is just how to make it work?). >> So I will include my thoughts here, but I have a feeling this might lead >> us in a different direction :p >> >> Text-slicer is news to me. It's close but doesn't exactly address the >> issue which is the difference in syntax. Further, my Org files are already >> usually rather short and built up as tiddler, it's not a matter of >> breaking them down but from changing what would be a bullet point (*) to a >> header (!) in TW. >> >> There seems like there should be a way where I can export to HTML (easy >> enough to do with Org) and then import as tiddler with TW? Does TW do that >> well, assuming the HTML does not include anything too "fancy"? >> >> Again, all I need is handling of headers, links, and that's it mostly. I >> will gladly add tags (that are different on my TW anyway) and provide a >> name for the tiddler myself. The format is so close. It's just that typing >> in Org-mode is much easier and effective, for me, and comes with the added >> benefits of spell checker (doesn't always work in TW). >> >> I can talk more about the benefits of writing in Org-mode, but I think >> that's outside the scope of this discussion -- to each their own. That >> said, I wouldn't recommend anyone try Org-mode just because they want to >> write in TW... that's crazy talk. There must be other reasons. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:23:13 AM UTC-4, LDL wrote: >>> >>> You can try this exporter: https://github.com/dfeich/org8-wikiexporters >>> that should give you a tid file via the standard export interface of >>> org-mode >>> >>> Il giorno martedì 26 giugno 2018 03:21:30 UTC+2, Shay Shaked ha scritto: >>>> >>>> I'm looking around and I see a lot of Emacs references, a few less (but >>>> still a lot) Org-Mode references, but I don't see something that answers >>>> the question itself (yet): is there a way to export from Org-mode to TW. >>>> >>>> I started playing around with Org-mode recently and the writing >>>> experience is great. I would really like to be able to export to TW (tid) >>>> format. The closet I saw was this >>>> <https://tiddlywiki.com/#Editing%20Tiddlers%20with%20Emacs> on >>>> tiddlywiki.com but I'm not sure how to actually use it. It doesn't >>>> font-lock (highlight) anything in the syntax really. Besides, I would >>>> *really >>>> *like to be able to write in Org-mode, if it exists. >>>> >>>> So... anyone here familiar with this? Anyone here uses Org to write and >>>> work with TW at the same time? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- 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/3086a7b9-82b4-4a3e-8470-9ab796aea635%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
