I'm not. frankly, smart/skilled enough to qualify my thoughts regarding moving Tiddlywiki to pure xhtml as a matter of 'flaws'. I can't think of a single thing that xml based tiddly-wiki could do that couldn't be done as it is written - Even my simple svg interpreter *works* for embedding SVG into a tiddler - not perfectly, but with moderate effort you can create icons, chapter headings, et all.
That said - One of the things I really like about Tiddlywiki is the pure text aspect. I'm not religious about it, but I liked it in Unix, I liked it learning html, and I like it in Tiddlywiki. It lets you take it apart and tinker with things, and every bit of javascript that stands between me and dealing with the raw svg (or other markup) helps highlight the fact that I don't *really* know what I'm doing (particularly when dealing with *just* enough changes that I don't realize why a script that would work in a regular document won't work quite right as a plugin). Which is fine - I'm used to it. But, it seems to me that Tiddlywiki would not lose anything by transitioning from html (with internal xml) to a completely xhtml base, in which you would *not* (To my simplistic point of view) need to work around the minor differences between the 'almost' XML of html and the 'actual' XML of XHTML. But would gain considerable simplicity in embedding XML inside Tiddlywiki. Something as simple as a systemXML tiddler could contain the dtd link in the same fashion as a systemServer tiddler does now, and you have access to any XML you want. The fact that I haven't seen anyone else that thinks this *probably* means I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the situation - I am after all asking for a major change in the entire underlying concept, basically for my personal convenience, and the fact that plugins would have to be redesigned to be XML compatible is a legitimate objection. But if I'm not fundamentally making a stupid suggestion, it might make many things simpler in the long run. Jonnan (Apologies, it was implied I mis-posted this in the user-group - Context Follows) >> I'm just curious. It seems to me that converting tiddlywiki to a pure >> xhtml (rather than the mixed html+internal xml base it has now) would >> open up some option regarding xml data being inserted into the >> tiddlers, which in turn would open up a plethora of specialized data >> like svg, mathml, virtually any xml with a schema should be embeddable >> in a tiddler fairly easily (As opposed to embedding it with >> workarounds as is done now). And I'm not seeing any options html opens >> that xhtml really closes off. >> Yet - This forum is chock-full of people smarter than me, and >> searching the forum shows a marked lack of interest in such a >> transition. Which probably means I'm not nearly as clever as I think I >> am, and will look really stupid asking why this would be a bad thing. >> Turns out I don't mind looking really stupid and asking - why the lack >> of interest in transitioning this to a pure xhtml base? I'm obviously >> missing something. >> Thanks - Jonnan ----- >> I'm just curious. It seems to me that converting tiddlywiki to a pure >> xhtml (rather than the mixed html+internal xml base it has now) would >> open up some option regarding xml data being inserted > Can you elaborate on the flaws you've encountered - preferably over at > http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWikiDev/ > -- F. ---- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
