On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 2:52:37 PM UTC+2, Mat wrote: ... > [...] My main point, in the latter posts, are that if the "indicator" can > be a distinctive string rather than only a single character, then we don't > need ticks or angle quotes. My interpretation is that the system *can *deal > with multi-character indicators such as @@. >
The problem is, that "distinctive stings" need to be part of the js code. So they are hardcoded. What if we don't provide the right "distinctive strings" It's not only 10 of them. Users will probably create combinations, we can't even think of. You are right. The parser needs some "standardized" characters, so it can detect special behaviour. Starting a line with PRETTY has absolutely no indication, that a user wants to create a new HTML element. It can be meant as prose text. Using elements like this, will give us way to many "false" indicators. We need to use something, that is _not_ common at the start of the line. Due to the lack of available chars, that are not "aggressive" like @@ I did use "tick" and the "angel qoute" Possibly relevant is that *tags in HTML5 can be arbitrary *e.g <pretty> > which is then styled like other tags, i.e no prefixing dot, e.g > You can define <pretty class="">, which imo makes more sense then applying a default style to a new element. ... Browser specific default settings for HTML elements only caused problems in the past. ... That's the reason why TW uses a "normalize.css <https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/themes/tiddlywiki/vanilla/reset.tid>" as a "reset" to normalize the CSS for all browsers. > pretty {background:red} > Why would I only want a red background for the PRETTY element. I also want to style my <dangerous> element with a red background. Do I need to duplicate CSS code? .pretty ... IMO does the job much better. > ...and my interpretation is that TW converts e.g an asterisk * into <li> > which in turn applies natively defined styling ...so shouldn't it be > possible to turn, say, "_P" or "_PRETTY" into <pretty> which can apply > other styling? I.e we don't have to adapt to the limited set of predefined > HTML tags. > As above. That's not flexible enough. There is a reason, why everyone uses classes to style UIs. Defining new elements with short names will probably cause problems in the future. If you have a closer look ath WebComponents, you'll see, that they need to user very long TAG names, to avoid naming clashes. With TW I personally would want to go with the standard HTML tags. They are standardized, and everyone knows what to expect. New elements only cause support requests, because nobody knows them. .. eg: Screen readers are probably not aware of them. ... -mario -- 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/3bd6e7bc-d678-42b8-a444-f9ec6f7ee81fo%40googlegroups.com.
