In haste, PMariuo & TonyM

TonyM wrote:
>
> Mario,
>
>    - I think it is worth persisting before release so we do not 
>    compromise the future possibilities
>
> I agree. PMario opened a lot of doors. We need time to go through them to 
TEASE out the power yet ensure workable default behavior.
ONE thing on my mind is INLINE nesting. Current *@@ ... @@ *prevents it. 
I'd like time to show how a markup inline of  »...« could support it and 
correct closure of inlined elements. So »tag-A ...»tag-B ...«« get closed 
correctly.

Best wishes
TT



 

>
>    - , or release something which is later very different and confuses 
>    people.
>    - Not with standing this perhaps a MVP just for paragraphs and div's 
>    plus classnames and no customisation? 
>       - This could allow a set of companion stylesheets to be build and 
>       tested
>    
> *On parameter names*
>
>    - Using a naming standard like your proposed one, always makes things 
>    harder for me to read, especially coming back to it after some time away, 
>    that is the leading c as when I scan wikitext the c interferes with 
>    spotting the name
>    - Have you considered using parameter names with the $ as we do 
>    elsewhere to separate it from another fieldname like in the macro-call 
>    $name?
>    - .name and _name and others should be possible, perhaps there is a 
>    precedent somewhere?
>    - They will not be used outside the pragma?
>
> *On underline*
>
> Can I suggest you stop referring to "_" as Underline as it is an 
> underscore, sure wiki text uses double underscore to wrap text and 
> underline it. But the character is underscore and its used to underline in 
> some cases.
>
> *On Custom tag*
>
> If the one parameter can now be used for html tags and widgets, although 
> they are tags, we do not call widgets tags, perhaps a different name like 
> "element"? which doco will say is a "html tag or widget name" Arbitrary 
> html tags permitted. 
>
> See https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_elements.asp where element is 
> valid for html and not a long way to referring widgets as elements as well, 
> elements beginning "<$elementname" and ending with "</$elementname>"
>
> *Other*
>
> I wonder if arbitrary widget names can be used?, and by customising we can 
> toggle if that widget introduced by that tick can be disabled/enabled. eg 
> debug mode.
>
> ´.debug This when in debug mode like <<transclusion>>
>
> I note that
> Top
>
> <$arbitrary>
> Content of arbitrary widget
> </$arbitrary>
>
> bottom
>
> Produces;
> Top
>
> Undefined widget 'arbitrary'
>
> bottom
>
> I wonder if we could toggle this "Undefined widget " message off, when 
> not debugging, on by default.
>
>
> Regards
> Tony
>
>
> On Friday, 11 September 2020 07:22:37 UTC+10, PMario wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:43:14 PM UTC+2, PMario wrote:
>>
>> If I did use different IDs I could have made the whole list widget thing 
>>> into a completely cryptic line of almost nothing. 
>>>
>>> \customize degree htmlTag="$presentation" mode=block endString="---"
>>> \customize angel htmlTag="$list" mode=block endString="--" 
>>> filter="[tag[slide]sort[title]]"
>>> \customize tick htmlTag="$slide" mode=block endString="-"
>>>
>>> ° » ´ <$transclude mode=block /> - -- ---
>>>
>>
>> Something "bad" needs to happen! I need to rename the pragma parameter 
>> names :/
>>
>> As you can see, the <$transclude mode=block /> widget call has a "mode" 
>> parameter. ... This parameter causes a naming conflict with the "mode" 
>> param from the pragma. That's why it's impossible to "replace" the 
>> transclude widget with a wikitext call. 
>>
>> In Version 0.3.0 all the params will be renamed, like so: 
>>
>> \customize <ID>=<userSymbol>           *cHtmlTag=<tag> .. or <widget-name>*
>>            cParams=<class definitions eg: .i.hl.x.y>
>>            cEndString=<string>
>>            cUse=<userSymbol reference>
>>
>> I did check all TW widgets. There should be no naming conflict with the new 
>> names. 
>>
>> As you can see, there is an other minor issue now. cHtmlTag isn't the right 
>> name anymore, since it can be a HtmlTag or a $widgetname 
>>
>> So a question. Will we keep cHtmlTag or should it be customTag or *cTag*? 
>>
>> Feedback please!
>>
>> -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/4c723799-af72-4dae-b2b9-22e612ac530ao%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to