I would also like for this (actually, I've even made this suggestion myself, but I fail to find where).
IMO tiddlers, as they're currently manifested, are not general enough to be "the smallest semantically meaningful unit <http://tiddlywiki.com/#Philosophy%20of%20Tiddlers>". IMO, what is "the smallest" *depends on context *- but at the very atomic level it must be the *field*. But this does present a (solvable) problem; A field is a <name>:<value> ...but that would mean we can only use one instance of each fieldname. Or we'd need some other identification to differentiate between foo:bar and foo:frotz.... so then the minimum entity would not be <name>:<value> but instead: <id>:[<name>:<value>] I would very much like to see this as a first class citizen. Of course, the typical 'end-user use' may then be to deal with a complex unit of these that is identical to the current tiddler manifestation. But not always! Especially not for when you just want a single value container. ...which is related to a recent thread <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywikidev/hHjo_COnmis> here where the concept of tiddlers as variables was discussed. This should make for very streamlined wikis. <:-) -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/4bbc3045-c8c5-430d-b775-9638d9ea1d63%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
