Hi Yakov, I dare ask again: Why not use definitions as slices?
I can imagine that this would be quite desireable. After all, we have just written down definitions! ## BEGIN EXCURSION ## Which brings me to the idea that a macro called <<slice>> might actually be desireable whereas... <<slice slice-ref>> ...would rendered both name and value as... ;slice :slice-value Oh boy, thinking about this made me create a new plugin... http://get.tiddlyspace.com ## END EXCURSION ## Anyhow, if the concern is reduced to layouting... then tables are not the issue, because layouting, obviously, has already been taken care of. So, what it then boils down to really is a formatter that matches the "simple" slice-name variant and somehow is smart enough to realize when the end of a slice-value has been reached without screwing up any other formatting. ...would be kind of ambiguous. Lucky for us, the core slice regex actually registers ambiguous slice value correctly, e.g.... foo: bar //italic bar more italic bar// *slice-name:* foo *slice-value:* bar //italic bar more italic bar// So, it seems like if we could identify that... 1. what is being wikified right now is a slice-name 2. if we fetch the slice-value for the tiddler being rendered and the text that follows actually matches the slice-value... then we know that we have to wrap the whole thing in a span with the class .sliceValue and subwikify the rest Cheers, Tobias. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
