To give a bit of clarification, the main purpose of the discussion was about the support of jQuery plugins in TiddlyWiki. In particular the goals were:
i) maintain backward compatibility, that is all existing plugins should continue to work ii) allow jQuery plugins to be used unchanged in TiddlyWiki (if possible) iii) define the plugin interface for jQuery plugins All discussion assumes the inclusion of the jQuery library in the TiddlyWiki core (this will be the case from version 2.5 onwards). The plugin interface is actually fairly limited - it's about how plugins are loaded into TiddlyWiki, not about how they are used. We specifically excluded the macro interface from the discussion, since we believe that is an independent discussion that can be deferred. The reason for allowing jQuery plugins to be used in TiddlyWiki is twofold - to make use of the existing library of jQuery plugins and to (hopefully) attract jQuery developers into the TiddlyWiki community. My tentative conclusion is that the existing plugin interface does not need to be changed (although it probably needs to be better documented). The current framework allows jQuery plugins to be used unchanged in TiddlyWiki and (of course) is backward compatible with itself. I would, of course, like to hear from anyone who believes this conclusion to be incorrect, so that appropriate changes can be made. Martin On 7 Jan, 23:19, Xavier Verges <[email protected]> wrote: > > * plugin indicator > > It might be desirable to use a tag other than "systemConfig" to indicate > > new-style/jQuery-aware plugins. (In fact, if the contract for such > > plugins ends up being significantly different, this would be required to > > ensure backwards compatibility.) > > Also, I personally think the "systemConfig" tag is somewhat > > inappropriate (semantically speaking), so I'd prefer something like > > "systemExtension". > > [undecided] > > While I agree that the tag is more correct, I think that this means > putting the burden on the end-user instead of on the developer, or, in > fact, on both, since there would be new end-user documentation to be > written and plugin authors would need to specify that the plugin is a > new-style plugin. Unneeded complexity, in my opinion. > > -Xv --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
