Mat wrote: > > > @TiddlyTweeter > > I am not the least fond of the pragma route for the reason I hinted in > this post, i.e that it breaks the authoring workflow. Imagine if you were > forced to add a pragma every time you wanted bullet lists? It is > distracting and bad UX, IMO. Pragmas definitely have their place, for > instance for macros where the pragma is part of what actually constitutes > the thing. Another case is a pragma that implies "this tiddler should have > this special functionality" but >
> ... my OP here is for something mundane and comparable to * for bullet > lists - it's just that the user himself can make up what the effect should > be. > Right. But that involves a *parser* that inserts the <li> element and deals with nests etc. *Excuse me if I read the original OP (which I was responding to) as wanting to* ... (1) custom style given to blocks like <p>, <li> etc using more Markdown Like method than the @@ ... @@ approach. (2) insert new HTML elements, not covered by extant WikiText, to enhance TW markup vocabulary? (3) permit gizmos (e.g. pipe) to alter what hits render? I can't see all of the three being achieved without at least a parser, and likely a pragma bit too (esp. for \rules). But, IF, the OP is to *only* cover easier tweaks/overrides to standard styling ... well its pretty much in arena that TonyM & PMario touched into in some detail already I think. Anyway its an interesting thing. One can finally smell some coffee maybe coming. Best wishes TT > <:-) > -- 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/2740a106-528d-495c-9a49-156e120acfe2o%40googlegroups.com.
