A Promised example Concatenate to get a link
\define doc-link(path name parameters) $path$$name$$parameters$ \end <a href=<<doc-link "http://gahp.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/"; "sample.pdf" "#page=3">> >My PDF File</a> <a href=<<doc-link "http://gahp.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/"; "sample.pdf" "#page=3">> target=PDFTab >My PDF File</a> In this case we can embed a macro (with parameters) inside HTML. The second example is always going to use the same browser tab/window ( a recent discovery of mine) Regards Tony On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:23:06 PM UTC+11, TonyM wrote: > > Jeff, > > We do not mind critsisium, we are always trying to improve things, I > expect the documentation to be easier to improve soon. > > There is however a reason why what you expected did not work, part of this > is using more than one form of coding html, wikitext, macros, css and > behind some macros javascript. One does not always embed in the other > without further consideration. Show me an example elsewhere of this and we > may harvest some ideas. > > When we want to embed one "Language" in another a common practice is to > construct the code in a macro definition. I will try and locate an example > when off my mobile. > > My point is tiddlywiki can stimulate our imagination so much we have ideas > about how it can be, when there are complications that are not so obviouse, > because we have multiple coding methods available at once, in an always up > to date interlinked interactive platform. > > I empathise, and have thought the same way, but I am starting to see how > tiddlywiki raises our expectations to exceed what it currently achives. > Most often a work around exists, or the community starts to digest changes > to come. The key is the community, conversations and change. Its not that > tw is not mature, its that it continues to evolve even although in many > respects it already surpasses the competition in capabilities (if not > simplicity). > > In my view Far too often today, simplicity is the result of the startup > culture, which wants to profit from minimalist solutions, to fund the > development of more comprehencive solutions by charging and taxing their > very same clients. Unnesasary compexity is desirable but not at the cost of > capability, unnessasariily simple things fragment what we need to use into > too many parts. > > TiddlyWiki exists at a point of convergence of multiple technologies and > thus is capable of great divergence as well. In this centre there are > artifacts, but there is also code patterns and methods to address them. > > Regards > Tony > > -- 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/f790005a-8fc9-4088-9c9f-3809f6cba23b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
