Aside: Maybe this belongs on the other thread but that thread is already too lengthy (IMO) to foster clarity for reasoned discussion. So…
To be clear, we are not truly talking about breadcrumbs, but rather something like “predefined pathways through a chosen topic chosen from among many”.
Breadcrumbs, on the other hand, should show the path taken to arrive at a given point (with no preconceived idea as to its logical/hierarchical placement within the forest as whole).
I’d much prefer to not use the term “breadcrumbs” for the “wrong thing” because, should we decide later to offer something truly breadcrumb-like, the term will already have been misapplied leaving us struggling to find another.
Let’s please call them TRACKS (or something).
But that’s just displaying HISTORY, like the browser back-button!
I don’t believe it is to TiddlyWiki’s benefit (philosophically or otherwise) to rest on facilities provided by user agents. TiddlyWiki should (and does) “stand alone” and do its own thing.
Yes, but that would lead to a huge line of links that simply wouldn’t scale!
That’s an implementation detail easily solved when the design is being thrashed out.
But that’s not how breadcrumbs are used on the web. Nobody does it like that!
Typically, TiddlyWiki does not encapsulate a conventional website structure.
But this is only meant for documentation tiddlers.
Good point. But once it’s used there, like everything else in TiddlyWiki, it will be used and incorporated elsewhere. Again, it’s the term I’m proposing to change, not the mechanism.
@pmario Feel free to move this if you feel it necessary.