My apologies - Busy Week. Personally, as a layman that has a hard time even getting into thing like the DOM in Firefox, I find A) Playing with XML structures is an incredibly useful way of organizing information. I can use the structure to setup a consistent way of accessing the information, I can depend on the way other software interprets it to be consistent, and if I need to figure something out it's easy to tweak till it's the way I want it. B) Numerous others have evidently had the same reaction - MathML and SVG are the two most obvious results to me, but when I look at the Wikipedia Listing I see a dozen others in common use, and others that pique my interest (Just looking I sit and go "Cool, there's a MusicML!". I have know idea how to use it, but I could put Bach in TW! Coool!) C) As mentioned, one of the things that I imprinted on when younger is the text based protocol of Unix. I learned HTML by taking the Lynx browser bookmark file apart. I tore scripts apart to learn sed, perl - maybe not well, but enthusiastically.
Obviously, TiddlyWiki works well for me. But then you get into a few things, like XML (and yes, SVG in particular. Because I think SVG is frickin' cool. It's a graphical system that I can tweak by looking at a text file. See 'C)' Above - <G>) that seem like they *should* port over into Tiddlywiki, but don't port well, or port incompletely, and there's no immediately obvious reason why that should be the case. To me, it looks like it ought to be a match made in heaven - embedding text-based markup language in TW is a nobrainer. This may in fact imply I have No Brains because there is something breathtakingly obvious that TW would lose by setting up a general system that allowed *any* XML to be embeddable in the wiki in a consistent manner rather than using one-off scripts designed for specific languages. Darned if I see it though. On the other, an SVG playground - http://www.openclipart.org/ has about 12,000 SVG items in it. Another obvious place is Wikipedia, which often prefers SVG in it's illustrations. Inkscape is the best SVG editor I've seen outside a text editor, although it has some design decisions I disagree with. http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/batik/ is a good SVG interpreter, I tend to use it when something I'm trying to do doesn't work in Firefox, and I'm trying to determine if it *should* but does not, or if I've simply misunderstood something. Jonnan On Nov 14, 6:45 am, Tobias Beer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jonnan, > > What's are your main ideas, drives, intentions or incentives as for > "moving completely to" xhtml? > > 1) To allow for better parsing by 'external' apps? > 2) To be more strict on the use of attributes, structure, naming? > 3) To switch to possibly more future-proof name-space conventions? > 4) To be prepared for the ubiquiteous dawn of svg? > 5) To possibly improve embedability, portability and os-independence > even further? > 6) Do you just have that gut feeling that it might be a drawback not > to make the move (any time soon)? > > Just in general, I find XML to be an utterly awful construct and I > wish some sort of js/json dialect would be the slick kind of structure > defining all web-elements, instead of this sort of bloated, > exhaustively redundant, hardly readable format ...and I don't mean to > just rant away on it. It's good to have reliable standards and XML > surely has evolved into that for many people, just like good 'ol java > did ...just can't do without main(). I'ts just that, in some respects, > XML feels like a straitjacket which you'd rather want to take off, > asap. > > By the way... is there any svg playground of yours to be played with > out there? > > Tobias. -- 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=.
