We should add these thought to comparsion website, so new users gets this.
1 Like
Sorry it wasn’t my intention to call you out. I was only trying to add my own views as someone who uses TiddlyWiki and is considering using Obsidian for the same use case.
That use case is managing a certain type of knowledge, and customising the experience of managing it so the process is smooth, enjoyable and makes sense to me.
From my perspective both would be able to accomplish this, so it makes sense to compare them. Both work a certain way out of the box, both have additional community plugins/contributions that adapt the experience and both have a way of customising the experience to suit your own needs.
1 Like
Using “calling me out” was me grasping for the right concise words without twisting myself into a cognitive pretzel…
To me, somebody mentioning me and quoting me and kind of misrepresenting what thoughts I may have had challenges expressing into words, that makes me a little bit uncomfortable and I can’t help but jump in again.
I tend to think the best way one can express one’s view is to express your view so that it stands on its own without getting into an intertwingled (interconnected / intertwined) bleurk. (Don’t mind me: I like a picture of information to not have any distracting connections, kind of like that kid that does not like the mashed potatoes touching the peas…)
Aside:
I’m kind of doing something similar to what you are doing: Notion instead of TiddlyWiki.
For non-technical folk (especially those who don’t like computers), Notion is much more comfortable than TiddlyWiki in regards to immediately starting to write and organise information.
Back to the comparison thing:
To me, comparing TiddlyWiki to “product X” is like comparing a specific brand of steak knife to another brand’s butter knife, or comparing a specific brand of tent to a specific RV, or comparing a Mitsubishi Mirage to a Mercedes-Benz G-Class.
Obsidian and Notion, to me, are in a category of hierarchical note-taking tools.
A paper pad is also a note-taking tool, but that’s a pretty different category.
Spreadsheet software could be used as a note-taking tool. But that’s a pretty different category of product.
TiddlyWiki can be used as a note-taking tool. But it is a pretty different category of product. I see it as so unique, that nothing else can fall into that category. It can map intertwingled thought like nothing else that I know of.
Comparing the category that TiddlyWiki belongs to and the category Obsidian and Notion belong in, that could make sense to me. Comparing TiddlyWiki to Obsidian specifically, to me, is like comparing Google Sheets specifically to Obsidian. Feels weird to me.
2 Likes
I’ve added a half-dozen pro’s. I’m thinking of adding another one, but want to verify that I’m correct:
Create titles and fields using all available character sets
But … is this true? Or am I over-stating the case?
Maybe I’m not understanding how the slant site works, but it appears that you have to enter a “pro” under each question that applies to TW. i.e., you may need to repeat the same “pro” several times if you want it to have full visibility. This seems counter-intuitive, since a “pro” that applies to one question should be equally valid for any other question.
Latest features, bro.
The change list is very long on each release, I just happened to know it.
No, it has delay. And what you entered must be randomly agree by others to get changes applied. So I’m asking others to do changes on this site.
It would be awesome if it were possible to setup a script to convert a folder of markdown files (in Obsidian or otherwise) into a self-contained TiddlyWiki to host and/or share. Thoughts?
1 Like
I suspect this is mostly true, some characters would be best not used even if they can be. I think on a comparison site it may be worth mentioning the extras relative to the others. Perhaps “use Unicode and other character sets” (leaving out the “all”)
- Then let me ask you,
- could you make obsidian do what TiddlyWiki does?
- because you can make TiddlyWiki do what obsidian does (that is my understanding)
Obsidian could just be an edition of TiddlyWiki, but not the other way around.
Regardless I am a big believer in a making use of a diverse set of tools and ensuring data transfer between tools.
- However I have decided that TiddlyWikis customisability and extendibility is so great, I have committed to it as an ecosystem and time invested there is time invested in its futures as well.
- Obsidian and other tools have their value, but I have no need to test their limits because TiddlyWiki has very few limits.
1 Like
Yes, and for a flat directory, this would be quite easy to do. But in any nested structure, it would take some real work to get links right.
How would one do it with a flat folder?
I can probably try to whip something up this evening or tomorrow.
But I have realized that even there, linking will likely be a problem for the quick bit of code I was imagining. Markdown links to other files are usually structured like HTML links: they can be relative or absolute, and they can have fragment identifiers. TW links hijack the fragment identifier for the tiddler (here the imported other file) and don’t allow fragment-level linking. At least they don’t easily, although there may be tricks.
1 Like
That would be incredible!! Happy to test!!
If you’re looking at Obsidian, then you also need to find tags embedded in text. Also, both tags and fields are in a YAML pre-amble at the top.
Outside of those problems, one way to convert is to not convert – just use the official Markdown plugin and add a type field for markdown in the tiddler header.
I just got it mostly done during a boring meeting, but Giganticorp doesn’t allow me to post to the public GitHub, so I will do it tonight. It is merely a proof of concept, though.
All this is certainly doable, and probably not overly hard, assuming something like the marked parser or an adjacent tool has support for YAML front-matter (and one of them must) but for now, I don’t need it because I chose instead at least for now to do this:
I did this using separate .meta files, so the markdown is entirely untouched. But I think it would be cleaner to prepend the meta information to the Markdown file. Ahh well, for a later version.
I did push this script. It should be quite easy to use if you’re familiar with Node. If not, I wrote some directions in the README. I hope they’re enough. If not, just let me know:
It right now converts a flat directory of .md files into a very simplistic TiddlyWiki, using the Markdown plug-in. Its README lists some of the potential fixes that might move this toward being a genuinely useful tool.
Based on the Docsify docs folder, it would create output like this:
2 Likes
Hi, you can continue using markdown, and only convert them if you need tw5 syntax features.
Use https://tw-cpl.netlify.app/#linonetwo%2Fmarkdown-transformer:linonetwo%2Fmarkdown-transformer%20Index plugin for this. It will add a viewTemplate button to convert current markdown tiddler to tw5 syntax.
You can copy code from my plugin GitHub - tiddly-gittly/md-to-tid: Transform markdown to tiddlywiki5 wikitext syntax. Using unifiedjs. I use unifiedjs, so the code is simple.
This technique can also be used to transform tw5 to markdown, so user can move freely between tiddlywiki and Typora or Obsidian.
I’m not particularly planning on taking this further, but I will definitely investigate your code.
I thought it through a bit and came to the conclusion that all of Markdown should convert easily enough to TW… with one exception: links deeper into into document. I don’t see how to support that and l look forward to seeing how you deal with that.
The other direction (TW to MD) presumably will only work in the simple markup cases.
1 Like
I only use md2tw when I use clipper GitHub - webclipper/web-clipper: For Notion,OneNote,Bear,Yuque,Joplin。Clip anything to anywhere to get md file from HTML, and then I transform this clipped website to tid. So I didn’t deal with wikilinks, only external links.