> *Mark S.* > So, your journal tiddler could have a field with a standard name (afm, > linux) where you note activities (e.g. afm: recalibrated the influx > manifold). Then you could have a tiddler "afm" with a view template that > lists all tiddler names and row contents for those actions. e.g. >
Yeah this could work. All it would need is a neat way of actually doing that field, as in, I'd rather not type out everything twice (text and field). The downside is though that there will be no formatting, so I can't have e.g. two bullet points under "afm", I'd just have to put everything in one line. A small sacrifice I suppose. TonyM > I have a solution better than that. From my Journal tiddler or any other > tiddler, I click on a Show log checkbox, you can then enter a log entry > single line or full editor and "Log Here" or "Log" . > Every entry is another line in a datatiddler prefixed with the date time > and includes the current tiddler if I use the "Log here". I attached a snap > shot to illustrate. > This is an interesting approach. Perhaps I could have data tiddlers for each tiddler (e.g. "afm") and then use some keybind to append data neatly from any tiddler to this data tiddler. Then just gather all that info up in the actual "afm" tiddler and show it nicely. Then if I change the content of the data I could just use the same keybind and it would automatically find and update the corresponding row in the data tiddler (JSON or whatever). This would be quite close to what I want. I would guess this is a better approach than the field approach? I have virtually no experience with either, but I would think that JSON is easier to manipulate and updating the correct rows etc would be a piece of cake. The more I think about this the more I like it. A "database" would be amazing. I could do this to all sorts of data and then later if I want to show them nicely in a tiddler I can just gather it all up from data tiddlers. Are there any downsides to using data tiddlers instead of fields? What would be nice is a way to include a link to a tiddler eg [[other > tiddler]] such that, that [[other tiddler]] will see this as a reference, > while not actually displaying [[other tiddler]] > Actually If we can excise text including a reference to another tiddler to > (lets call it) a snippit, but not only replace it with a transclusion but > leave the snippit in the text (only make it hidden/consume no space when > viewing the tiddler) then search, references and more will continue to work > despite the the "excising of the snipit". > Would it not be easier *not *to use transclusion in this case? Just copy the snippit and be done with it. Then the original text stays the same, references and all that work fine and it looks exactly the same. The same data is just also present in the snippit. Then if you change the initial text, you would just do the snippit again and it would be updated with the new data. -- 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/49749c28-e5c7-4afc-b581-c4debabb896f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
