Hello Jeremy and all,
> 4. I worry about the safety of JavaScript embedded directly in wikitext.
I'm hoping to use something like this to be able to have the option of
running JS properly sandboxed...
I guess you fear users may break functionality of their TW when playing w/
JS, right?
Now I am in an uncomfortable situation: On one hand I have no knowledge
about the inner workings of TW, on the other hand I fear that TW might tend
to a wrong direction. Please forgive me for my perhaps stupid objections:
* You want to insert another JS interpreter written in JS. What is the
performance impact? (Consider not only a short filtering expression, but
maybe a use case to generate data to visualize with D3.)
* What is the complexity impact for maintaining TW as a whole?
* What is the size impact? (What is the size of an empty TW? What about
automatic saving? Will the whole TW be saved if a single tiddler changes as
in TWC?)
* What is the freedom impact? What can I do with a completely sandboxed JS
interpreter? (Personally, I would choose freedom over safety.)
* Is it possible at all to get a _save_ TW?
* You are considering even more languages? Can this really be handled? In
the core of TW?
Please understand above statements as concerns. I am far from judging
anything. So perhaps these concerns are unsubstantiated.
regards
Michael
Am Montag, 16. Dezember 2013 10:14:57 UTC+1 schrieb Jeremy Ruston:
>
> Sorry to be late to this discussion.
>
> 1. I'm interested in extending (and documenting) the current filter syntax
> to cover more use cases. During the beta we can tolerate mild backwards
> incompatibility, but the ship has already sailed over the general format of
> filters
>
> 2. Like Michael, I don't want to see the filter syntax get much more
> complicated; as it approaches JavaScript levels of complexity it would make
> more sense to let users access JavaScript directly
>
> 3. I'm also interested in completely new filter languages. Like Stephan,
> I'm interested in Lisp. So, I think it would be useful to define a syntax
> for specifying the language used in a filter.
>
> For 3, we could have an optional type marker at the start of the filter
> string. For example:
>
> <tw>: [tag[Jeremy]tag[oldschool]]
>
> Or
>
> <lisp>: ((((((lisp code here)))))
>
> <js>: return wiki.getTiddlerList("myList");
>
> 4. I worry about the safety of JavaScript embedded directly in wikitext.
> I'm hoping to use something like this to be able to have the option of
> running JS properly sandboxed:
>
> https://neil.fraser.name/news/2013/12/05/
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Michael Herrmann
> <[email protected]<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> 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] <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Ruston
> mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>
>
--
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.
