On Jul 30, 11:33 pm, John Hind <[email protected]> wrote: > However there is now way to much redundancy for my taste. All the following > seem to be equivalent: > > 1. ((Motovun Jack.jpg)) @jeremy I'm not 100% sure, but I think, the ((...)) starts it's live as a replacement for the <<inclusion ...>> macro, that was used inside template tiddlers. It just did include text from a tiddler, without any <div> or <span> wrapper into the template. right? So the usecase is totally different to a <<tiddler>> transclusion.
> 4. <<image [[Motovun Jack.jpg]]>> > 5. <<tiddler [[Motovun Jack.jpg]]>> For me this are 2 totally different macros. That both of them display the x.jpg tiddler as a picture is a coincidence. If I change the "type" field of x.jpg to "text/plain" I want <<tiddler [[Motovun Jack.jpg]] "className">> to display the tiddler content as text. With jpg, it would only make sense for debugging but anyway. With svg it makes sense ..... <<image [[anypic]] width:111 height:111 other image specific params to come >> ... should display a tiddlers content as a picture, no matter what type the tiddler is. -m -- 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.
