> > Still seems to be no way to generate single static pages for each Tiddly > aside from the convoluted Node.js method via the command line >
If I understand correctly, you want to export multiple tiddlers from your
standalone Tiddlywiki to separate Html files, the same way static site
generators do.
I am attaching a plugin called staticExporter macro. Drag and drop it to
your standalone Tiddlywiki, refresh the wiki. Now use it like this.
<$button actions=<<staticExporter "[tag[HelloThere]]">>>
Export all tiddlers tagged HelloThere to separate HTML files.
</$button>
You can read more about it in the readme section of the plugin.
Javascript-based tag pills do not work in exported static HTML page.
>
You mean, if you click on it, the drop-down showing "other tiddlers with
same tag" is not appearing? I haven't done it myself either, but I have an
inkling that this is also possible. Of course you'll have to tweak the
template and link to a copy of external-js of Tiddlywiki, and create a
static list. Difficult, probably time consuming, but possible I guess.
"Feature creep" – TW is getting more and more features added to it,
> which is adding to the basic file size.
>
I understand this and voice the same opinion. A number of things in the
recent editions should have been official plugins. What I usually do is,
when a new version come out, I git clone it to a local folder, remove the
unnecessary things, add the stuff I use regularly, build it to an empty
standalone file and use that thereafter, instead of downloading standalone
html from Tiddlywiki.com
I want to use TW as simply as possible, in its original intent – as a
> browser-based program. I have my browser open all the time when on my PC,
> and it is very convenient to switch a tab to my TW, rather than the other
> methods of using it via a server, or a stand-alone program such as
> Tiddlydesktop. Will TW be able to be used like this into the future?
>
Have you met Timimi <https://ibnishak.github.io/Timimi/> ?
Despite my trepidations, I still like the program and want to be able to
> use it (have to admit that I spend a bit of time "playing" with it!). I
> still have not found the "one program to rule them all" when it comes to
> writing and recording my data and creative work, but TW has a lot of
> elements I like. (Dokuwiki is another wiki I like, but it is more complex
> and requires a server to function.) The community around it is also
> welcoming and friendly!
>
I have tried out dozens of softwares out there in search of a perfect tool
for building my personal knowledge base. I set the following criteria.
- FOSS
- Offline first
- Tweakable
- Scalable
- Cross platform.
In my experience, Tiddlywiki is second only to org mode for the purpose.
But then, there will be always org mode. It is unfair to any note taking
software to be compared to org-freakin-mode, which enjoys the full
hearted support of an ecosystem build by Richard St. Ignucious Stallman
himself in C, and is extensible by the language of gods. I heard that they
are even porting it to rust to enable multi threading. My point is, the
apples and oranges comparison aside, Tiddlywiki is your best bet if you are
not an org mode fan.
sincerely,
Riz
--
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/2593b924-9765-46f2-a115-88c53139d6c3%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
$__plugins_tesseract_staticExporter(2).tid
Description: Binary data
