> So, if I understand you correctly, the existing template file will > become obsolete and so its syntax is moot. That's a good result.
Yes, that's correct. We'll look back and laugh at it. > I had presumed the templating mechanism for wikitext would be via the > use of macros. The above makes me think you have something else in > mind as well. Care to elaborate? I'm still thinking a lot of this out. One option I'm considering is recasting macros as a more conventional textual substitution and expansion mechanism, and introducing a new plugin invocation model that executes target tiddlers as JavaScript. Then we'd have plugins called things like "http://tiddlywiki.com/plugins/slider";, and end users would start with a "slider" macro that invokes that plugin, but could invent their own macros that shortcut the invocation of the plugin with different parameters. In any case, I'd like to pull the execution of JavaScript parameters up out of the macro syntax and be a first class part of the wikitext syntax. > Yep, I certainly agree with that goal. Good. >> I also note that people who want to write Jinga2 or mustache templates >> are already pretty well catered for > > This misses the point. The purpose of using Jinga2 is not to support > people who want to write Jinga2 templates. It's, as Chris puts it, to > support cross-pollination. So I'm imagining a situation where a Jinga > guy starts playing around with TW5 and we get a posting to one of the > TW groups, something like: "I've noticed TW5 uses Jinga. Did you know > that if you combine TW5 with this Jinga tool you can do this amazing > thing..." The amazing thing being some new use for TW5, that nobody > had thought of before. And, as Chris points out, the cross-pollination > also works with communities. So some Jinga guy posts in a Jinga forum > "Have you seen this TW5 thing that uses Jinga, check it out" and as a > result we get a whole load more TW5 users and developers. Yes, I agree with all of that, I was making a different point: that TW5 is much more usable as a component by ordinary web developers who don't want to deal with the historical eccentricities. TW5 already incorporates a bunch of external components where it makes sense, and will continue to do so. > So if you do extend wikitext templating, it should not just be > inspired by mustach or Jinga2. It should be conformant with one of > those standards. I don't care which one, but it should avoid ploughing > its own furrow. I'm not so confident that I can devise a syntax that is harmonious with the existing wikitext principles while also being 100% compatible with either of those existing syntaxes. And neither would I expect to be able to do that: Mustach and Jinga2 are trying to solve a different problem from TW5, with different constraints. They only look like the same problem from a distance. Cheers Jeremy -- 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.
