This thread is kind of old so I won't be surprised if no one replies, but 
I've been a TW Classic user for more than 7 years and am slowly moving over 
to TW5.  I've grown quite accustomed to the way images were handled before, 
but I absolutely love the way they are done now in TW5.  My only problem is 
that through the years I've maintained a directory of image files I pull 
from when I want to include one in a tiddler.  This has the benefit of my 
main index file not being very large though I've filled it with lots of 
data.  The very first thing I noticed with the new way of image handling 
was it increases the size of the index file greatly.  I'm not a programmer 
and other than the syntax I've learned from using TW for these number of 
years, and some bash scripting, and I don't write code, but don't larger 
index files take longer to load in the browser?

In addition, I'm sharing this file (with directory of images) over ownCloud 
between three of my own computers.  The larger the file size, the more my 
ownCloud client has to upload to the central server.  With all of this in 
mind, I'm glad to have some of the old TW functionality available.

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 1:01:34 PM UTC-7, John Hind wrote:
>
> I just spent some time exploring the state-of-the-art with TW after using 
> version 2 happily for a year or so without doing any development work. TW5 
> is looking stunning and the SVG graphics support (which I assume will get 
> an editor at a later stage - maybe http://code.google.com/p/svg-edit/) 
> will open up whole new areas of use for me.
>
> As an experiment I tried:
> ((Motovun Jack.jpg))
> After all he's just a tiddler (and a cute one at that) so transclusion 
> should work as for any other tiddler, right? And, sure enough, it does work.
>
> So why not remove (or deprecate if you want backward compatibility) the:
> [img[Motovun Jack.jpg]]
> syntax?
>
> The *tooltip* and *link* parameters could usefuly be added to the 
> standard transclusion syntax as they might be useful on other types of 
> transclusion. Otherwise, the transclusion syntax is much more powerful and 
> would open all kinds of extra possibilities for image selection and 
> rendering.
>
> Greatly looking forward to further developments!
> John
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to