Hi, With TW5 we can transclude full tiddlers "only".
With TWclassic we had so called "slices" and "sections" <https://classic.tiddlywiki.com/#%5B%5Btiddler%20macro%5D%5D> that could be transcluded from "other" tiddlers. Transclude "slices" syntax is basically gone in TW5. The file format is used for .multids files and dictionary tiddlers. .multids are "read-only" and therefore only useable for TW developers. The "section" transclusion syntax is used for TW5 data-tiddlers *but the concept is completely different*, which as Jeremy pointed out several times, hasn't been the best decision. With section transclusions, users could transclude parts of one tiddler into an other, using "*headings" as the selectors*. -->> Don't understand me wrong: There where some reasons, why this function is gone. Technically it's much more heavy weight then transcluding full tiddlers. *And *it suffers the "*broken link syndrome*" even more than renaming tiddler titles. ... Since it is very common to change the heading text while editing a tiddler. -> So those links are broken way to easy!! ----------------- *On the other hand *there was something extremely powerful going on, while writing content. Headings do create data structure, even if the writer didn't intend it. eg: Authors use headings like *Overview - Introduction - Description *- very often. ... So over time, tiddlers contain sections with "similar" intention more and more often. So after several refactoring iterations of a wiki, users did create very powerful *intrinsic data-structure*, that can be used to create - *lists with section content*. With TW5 this *natural *creation of data structures is gone. ... I personally miss this functionality the most in TW5. This was a real regression. eg: *Mixing code and prose documentation in 1 tiddler *like in a TWclassic plugin, was the most important thing that brought me to TiddlyWiki. I was searching for a "literate programming <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming>" tool / editor. ... And TW was the closest thing I could find and actually *liked*! ----------------- Coming back to the topic. There is a deep philosophical PROBLEM with fragments---as with any strong > approach. > > *HOW small is a good fragment? And how would you know?* > > IMO good fragments go down to *a single paragraph, without tearing it apart from it's "initial" context*. ... So it's the "tiddler section", without it's drawbacks. have fun! mario -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/c9c11ac1-4fbd-4943-960f-1320d8731e41%40googlegroups.com.
