Mat wrote: For tiddly fiddling such as coding or working on a website etc, it is OK > with intricate constructions and looking up commands etc. >
> For note taking or topic-focused authoring it is not reasonable to force > the author interrupt his topical flow with "system things". It is this > latter case that I'm concerned about. > Right. But looking at Marios extant solution it supports BOTH approaches. In the case of Joe Get-On-With-It Writer pre-created consolidated classes, probably one with a proper name, could be supplied for common writing situations. The more complex approaches could be used by developers and technical minded writers. BUT for user #2 the indicator (ยด) has to be as easy to type as most other > things. I guess tick is OK but having to use a sepate tool for it is IMO a > no-go because it totally hijacks your attention. "." in earlier discussions was put aside because, I believe, even if you could get it to work, there could be confusion with class naming. I too would prefer a character found on all Western keyboards. I do like ".", partly because its a not uncommon line starter in various types of markup. That said I'm not sure its optimal for TW. Not sure. Even though "acute accent" is not on my keyboard I'm not adverse to it. I'd just initially create lines of the full code I want to preface a line with in the STAMP TOOL. The thinking here is that actually you would often/usually(?) add more than a character (UNLIKE Markdown), but a trigger character Plus a class? Finally, on that, could the character default to acute accent but option to use another? Maybe breaks portability? How about a *period AND some other standard character, even a letter or a > word*, e.g: > .D My text > -or- > .DETAILS My text > This make things very clear both when authoring and when reading the code. Ermmm. Actually I think that is potentially confusing as .D is not necessarily a style per se, but a trigger. Marios cases so far cover "single non alphabet character" trigger with or without classes AND richer "pragma"(ish) very flexible approach. *I like both*. But need work a while to get really clear about issues in actual writing. But for your case #2 I think it is most consistent with extant WikiText to use a single "glyph/symbol" rather that bringing letters into it. Thoughts, 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/bc765750-e206-410a-91f9-4905eda6e6fao%40googlegroups.com.
