>> I think that part of the dissonance is that the TiddlyWiki filter >> syntax is intentionally wiki-ish, while the TiddlyWeb design is being >> drawn more towards URI-ishness. And URI-ness intentionally beats >> wiki-ness for TiddlyWeb, I think. > > I thought that was true of TiddlyWiki filters, given they're also > useful for permaview fragids?
Yes, I think at the time I was so thrilled that I'd figured out a way to get permaviews working at all that I didn't pay enough attention to the hideousness of the URLs. All that %5B%5C stuff is not pretty at all. On a related point, I carefully made the TiddlyWiki client code only use the bit of the URI after the '#' fragment identifier, because the specs seemed to imply that the fragment was for the client, and the query string was for the server. I was particularly thinking that people might need to host TiddlyWiki documents on URIs that they couldn't control, and therefore might include random query strings. Now that we've got TiddlyWeb, it has occurred to me that it might be neat to give the client code (when run in serverless mode) the ability to parse query strings itself. It would then be possible to give someone a static URI for a permalink to a particular tiddler in a TiddlyWiki document, and for that URI to survive the TiddlyWiki document being upgraded into an instance of TiddlyWeb. Cheers Jerm -- Jeremy Ruston mailto:[email protected] http://www.tiddlywiki.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
