Great question.
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 9:13:24 AM UTC-5, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> I tagged this as "offtopic", but I don't think it is.
>
>
Me neither. It's central to TW philosophy and TW design/programming.
There is a deep philosophical PROBLEM with fragments---as with any strong
> approach.
>
> *HOW small is a good fragment? And how would you know?*
>
>
>
It's context-dependent.
TW's "elementary particle" is the field (not the tiddler), in my view. Most
especially when viewed from a metadata perspective.
The beauty in TW's overall approach is shown in its query language
(filters), its "algebra", where metadata choices "drive" filter choices,
which provide for ("serve") the intended purpose.
Through a wider lens, transclusion at the tiddler-text-field level is a
design choice made on a context-by-context basis. For example, I perform
far more transclusions in technical guides and documentation TWs than my
personal, note-taking wikis (bk-tw as you know, Josiah, also makes
infrequent use of transclusion at the tiddler-text-field level, but at the
metadata/field level it uses tons of transclusions).
So, in my view...
A "good fragment" is, *generally speaking,* something that "belongs" in a
field.
And "how I know" is dictated by: purpose, context, knowledge of the algebra
and personal experience ("taste").
--
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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/80e902f4-4818-40df-b895-33f5f5b73f08%40googlegroups.com.
