WYSIWYG vs not: Why not both(!).
Why could todays "view" not be WYSIWYG for regular text and if you wanted to code etc go into "edit" like today. (Actually, adopting something like Tobias' linkifyplugin approach would even enable the key concept of linking in WYSIWYG automatically! [1],[2]) While everyone no doubt appreciated the coding aspects, actual applications like "homepages" probably have more pure text than is reflected in the google discussion groups (ie. where code is discussed). I'd think WYSIWYG is particularly welcome (and expected) by people coming in contact with TW for the first time. <:-) [1] http://linkify.tiddlyspot.com/index.html [2] http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki/browse_thread/thread/80569db4f950a96f On Apr 21, 3:13 pm, Jeremy Ruston <[email protected]> wrote: > > I almost abandoned hope that TW5 development will continue, so I'm glad that > > project is alive. > > Yes, it's been a long journey to get here, with a few distractions > along the way. > > > But some points are unclear to me. > > 1. WYSIWYG - will it be main (or at least fully featured) editing mode? Any > > support for easy refactoring (I like how it works in Smallest Federated > > Wiki)? > > WYSIWYG in the traditional sense isn't much of a focus for me at the > moment. I think the success of MarkDown has shown that people are > starting to see that WYSIWYG is not the panacea it first seems: it may > be trivial to apply WYSIWYG to things like bold and italics, but > there's no easy way to handle things like macro calls with WYSIWYG. I > think of WYSIWYG as being pretty much a failure: look at Microsoft > Word, where the price of WYSIWYG is that your formatting commands are > attached to special invisible characters at the end of paragraphs. You > get unexpected behaviour when those invisible markers are pasted or > deleted. > > Having said that, I have taken care to ensure that a WYSIWYG edit mode > could be added to TW5. The technical hassles are enough that I'm not > keen to do it myself. You'll appreciate that rich text editors on the > web work with HTML, not wikitext, and so one has to worry about round > trip conversion from wikitext to HTML and back again, which is > awkward. > > I am very interested in being able to edit transcluded tiddlers > directly, though. The goal of TiddlyWiki is about improving the > reusability of content by breaking it up into small chunks, and using > transclusion and aggregation to thread those chunks together into a > narrative. I believe that direct editing will make it much easier to > work in that way. > > I'm also tracking SFW with great interest. If you're referring to the > drag and drop refactoring, then, yes, that is very much on my roadmap. > > There is a strong correspondence between SFW and TW5. What SFW calls > paragraphs correspond to tiddlers in TW5, and what SFW calls a page > corresponds to a story in TW5. It's not a primary focus, but I'd hope > to be able to use TW5 as a client for SFW. > > > 2. What about editing history? How is it supposed to be stored? > > Servers like TiddlyWeb provide revision support that TiddlyWiki5 will > be able to hook into. > > I am also interested in implementing revision support within the > client, so that revisions are available when working as a single HTML > file. I'm hoping to use a diff-patch-merge function so that only the > differential changes between versions will need to be stored. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy > > -- > Jeremy Ruston > mailto:[email protected]://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.
