Hallo Stephan and all,
I would like to share some basic considerations regarding user interface
via dedicated wiki language features vs. using JavaScript directly.
- From my point of view there is a risk to provide TW features via a
new, dedicated syntax that is only slightly shorter and slightly easier
than JavaScript itself. ( as mentioned above )
- When this happens, then we loose in many aspects:
- The code grows.
- Maintainability decreases.
- We have to learn something completely new (compared to some
established technology like JS).
- On the other hand when the *user-recognizable-complexity-distance*between
JS syntax plus context requirements and a dedicated syntax is high
enough, then this pays off a lot. For sure.
- Keeping a good ratio should never be forgotten.
But there's more to it:
- I would think of myself as some kind of intermediate user: I am far
from understanding the inner workings of TW5. But I do not fear to write a
couple of statements in JS.
- In fact, Jeremy can never foresee all the use cases that come to our
minds. So he will never provide mechanisms for everything.
- There will always be people like me, who want to make use of TW in an
unforeseen way.
- From that point of view, I even prefer a well documented and easy to
use JS interface.
- Of course, those intermediate users are a subset of all the users.
- The real power users, like Stephan, Mario and others have no real
problem.
- But there are also the beginners.
- Perhaps the following principle would help us all:
- Whenever things become more complex, let's find an easy and well
documented JS interface.
- Now that we have a clear plugin mechanism, we can add dedicated
syntax plugins for those situations that are too much for total beginners.
- Then everyone can choose between both. Advanced users can even
exclude those beginner's-helper-plugins.
As a summary I clearly vote for not excluding JS as interface in all
situations.
Regarding list/filter/template context: For me, this is an example where I
could imagine a JS interface that should not be too complex compared to the
current syntax.
best regards
Michael
Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013 20:43:30 UTC+1 schrieb Stephan Hradek:
>
>
> I think, we don't need a new filter syntax. We need better documentation
>> for the existion one.
>>
>
> We need enhancements for the existing one. Tell me how to filter for one
> of the custom fields I called "is", "sort", "links", "prefix"…
>
>
>
>> Atm it is one page [1] TiddlerFilters.
>>
>
> But here I agree… The documentation needs enhancement.
>
>
>
>> The filter syntax parser may need some adjustments too, to make
>> everything consistent. eg: whitespace for readability should not disable
>> the filter function.
>>
>
> I also agree here.
>
>
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
