> I'm not keen on the use of vocabulary to modify the same mime type for > two different reasons: > > 1: If the syntaxes indicated by vocabulary are actually different -- that > is, look different -- then a different type makes sense: they're > different, be clear about it.
Part of the motivation is that I want to implement macros as true text substitution macros, so that authors would be able to define how <<footnote>> expands to raw wiki text. The idea is that authors and groups would liberally create new vocabularies for projects and domains, essentially designing their own dialects. All the existing TiddlyWiki macros would just become off-the-shelf substitutions. Thus one would need to know the vocabulary used to author a particular tiddler in order to render it. >> Is this a reasonable use of content type parameters? Is TiddlyWeb set >> up to deal with parameterised content types? > > 2: It would make quite a few things in TiddlyWeb much more complex. > TiddlyWeb chooses serializers[1] and renderers[2] based on mime type _not_ > on parameters to those mime types (in fact it chops off stuff after > the ";" as irrelevant and uses the mime type as a key in a dict that > maps mime type to function). The assumption is that something which is > text/x-tiddlywiki (for example) will be rendereded by the renderer for > x-tiddlywiki. So it would treat "text/x-tiddlywiki; vocabulary=(tw2)" > and "text/x-tiddlywiki; vocabulary=(tw5)" the same and render and > serialize them with the same tool. Right, I think under this proposal TiddlyWeb would still only need to look at the mime type itself to choose the serialiser and renderer. tw5ikifier can wikify both tw5 and tw2 syntax. The only requirement would be that TiddlyWeb could pass the content type parameter through to it. > To me that makes sense, because of "1:" above. If they are the same, > they should use the same renderer. If they need a different renderer > they must not be the same.. > Also is vocabulary of your own design or do you have a reference to > its prior use? It looks a lot like: > http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/draft-inkster-profile-parameter-00.html Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I'm not so keen on the word "profile" because it's quite generic, but I do see that "vocabulary" has other associations as well. At this stage it doesn't matter too much what is actually in those vocabulary tiddlers, because most of the time it would be a matter of matching the URLs identifying the different vocabularies. Vocabularies would be nested, and would resolve down to a ordered lists of wikitext rules and macro definitions. Best wishes Jeremy > [1] serializer turns a representation into a tiddler or collection of > tiddlers > [2] renderer takes tiddler text and makes it into HTML if it can > become HTML > > -- > Chris Dent http://burningchrome.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. > -- Jeremy Ruston mailto:[email protected] -- 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.
