Mario,
I was thinking of a default ghost tiddler for defacto functions, however to
develop the facility for many or other purposes.
Or is it used in a different way[?]
Any which way. is my answer
But I do note;
- The standard use of $:/ and the examples you provided, it get this!
- the current use of "_" although is $:/_ a separate creature?
- What other characters make sense here?, they need to be usable as tags
and fieldnames.
- Mats suggestion of using slugify may be helpful here, even and
alternative to slugify a namespace operator and macro
- Imagine I give the title description and it lets me list or select
_caption a field, caption a tiddler or $:/caption a system tiddler for
managing caption(s)?
*Extended namespaces and the ghost tiddler concept.*
- A "Ghost tiddler" could be used to provide a matching field to fields
found in the original tiddler eg: description in the ghost tiddler could
describe the description field in the original tiddler and be used as the
tooltip (not a perfect example because we use description everywhere)
- An example would be a ghost tiddler for $:/tags/ViewTemplate which
would document how the tag works and related tiddlers,
- I would also like to tag a ghost tiddler but not the original shadow
tiddler so I can add an organisational tag system without editing shadows
them-self.
- It may be possible to use non-unique ghost tiddlers that we provide
for tiddlers with a specific field value.
- Ghost tiddler may also allow multiple ghosts for one tiddler that for
example may allow for three dimensional tiddlers, and example would be
multi-layer images (with transparent backgrounds or SVG's, which one can
set the order front and back etc...
One point I would like to make, is it is critical when making plugins to
follow some strict disambiguation with naming standards, however if I am
building a bespoke wiki I may choose to forgo compatibility and
transfer-ability for simpler usage. The most obvious example is having
tiddlers with the name of tags and fields that are not system tiddlers.
These may not work across wiki, but they certainly make the current wiki a
more intuitive solution to non tiddlywiki users, just users of a app/site
built on tiddlywiki. Global applicability should not I believe prohibit
local innovation.
In an example I built for a user, I even have tiddlers for the values of
fields. For example an object-type field with the value "task", has a
"task" tiddler which lists the tasks. and the task tiddler has an
object-type of "object" so the tiddler "object" lists all objects. Here is
where I may push tiddler code into a ghost tiddler for fields. So the
object "task" has a field called status, for which there is a status
tiddler, that has a ghost status tiddler, with a description of the
"status" field. Or filters for listing each status eg: closed and archived
status.
The thing is if we can reliably detect the existence of one or more ghost
tiddlers, (The lookup operator is our friend) we can build solutions that
have the minimum of code but allow an intuitive interaction with the code.
I have an idea for a book called "occam's electric shaver' which is a
digital equivalent of "occam's razor". Basically one builds up a
sophisticated solution then decomposes it into a simpler one, reiterate
until the final result is the most powerful solution, with the simplest of
models to use and understand the end result. A single system namespace of
$:/ gets in the way of this reiterative abstraction by forcing a need for a
non-intuitive for-knowledge of $:/ and its behaviour.
I believe there are a small set of standard "ghost" tiddlers if they became
a de jure standard could maintain more inter-wiki possibilities while
introducing substantial code patterns.
I want to construct new namespaces but then choose when to apply cross
namespace behaviour.
Do I sound like a raving lunatic?
Regards
Tony
On Monday, June 29, 2020 at 5:30:13 AM UTC+10, PMario wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 28, 2020 at 9:28:36 PM UTC+2, PMario wrote:
>>
>> So translated to "ghost" fields it may be:
>>
>> $:/ghost/pluginName/fieldName or $:/ghost/pluginName/!!fieldName... ->
>> Would this be useable for your usecase?
>>
>
> Is the "ghost tiddler" always responsible for fields? Or is it used in a
> different way ... sometimes?
>
> -m
>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/cb59ec27-7cc3-4b00-9964-599fe24e06a8o%40googlegroups.com.
