This post is part related to …
… and …
I was surprised that the TW Static is not a great advert for TW because of it’s numerous 404 problems.
For example, click this and click on “Advanced Search”, and you will get a 404.
''Introduction To Filter Notation'' ...
This is the static version ... Introduction to filter notation
https://tiddlywiki.com/static/%24%3A%2FAdvancedSearch.html …
I will write next about IF we can solve this!
TT
SO, there is a problem in static in that dynamic links fail. Right?
Many many sites they don’t need dynamic TW. Static will do the job.
However on export to static currently references remain to dynamic-
My query for DEVELOPERS (the people who know 
!) is how on export to static we can either remove or hide the links to non-existent “pages”???
That is my main question.
TT
Just to clarify this is happening when you export all to a static story and click selected links?
I do understand the desire to link static TW pages directly to the forum. I’m OK with that and I kind of support it.
BUT
I think in this case it should have been a simple clickable link to the static page in question, instead of a page in an iframe, hidden in a details widget.
I started this post with a request for a link to the static page I can open and I still do.
The hidden iframe should show a problem by creating a problem. … That’s OK
But it’s hard for devs to work with the page, limited to the iframe. It needs to be on it’s own tab in the browser.
So for me personally a link would have worked better. I could have looked at the problem, instead of writing this post.
Sorry for the rant. …
Yes, though any export to static that contains dynamic links will have the issue. It does not have to be a whole site.
TT
Right. I’m not totally wedded to my idea. I may be wrong.
My overall thought, though (which IS a kind of ideology) is based on the idea it would be good to show TW much more in Discourse than talk about it.
I think visual presentation is central to that. And Iframe of static sometimes useful in that?
Just a comment, TT.
If you’re using a link, why not permalink to the dynamic page?
I think, the idea is OK. … But it has a fundamental problem. … TW has “permalinks” and “permaviews” … For me the prefix “perma” means permanent. Which says:
continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change – stable…
The problem is TW links change … The next version may show a different representation of the link than the one did, with which the link was created. For docs link we want that behaviour …But the correct term would need to be deep link …
The same is true for an embedded static-links in this forum. It points to a static page. … BUT the page isn’t static in the sense, that the content doesn’t change. It only means that there is no js-code included in the page.
So if we embed https://tiddlywiki.com/static/HelloThere.html into a thread now, it probably will look different in 1 year from now. …
So what we want is a “static snapshot” or “permanent snapshot” of a page, that won’t change, because the static link is used in the context of the discussion here in the forum and posts may discuss elements of the static page, that are not there anymore.
Or content gets fixed after the discussion here. So the link shows the correct content and invalidates posts in the forum … I think you get the problem.
What we need to make truly “static” links work is “versioned links” like https://tiddlywiki.com/5-2-3/static/HelloThere.html
It’s possible to create them, but it would need to be implemented to the TW publishing system.
@jeremyruston … Can we get “versioned static links” ?
It’s not merely a matter of core functionality – each person publishing a static wiki would have to undertake to keep those static versions on their server for perpetuity.
These threads have explored some interesting ideas, but the laws of physics are harsh. Iframes containing TiddlyWikis wouldn’t work for people reading the forum on email, or via a slow connection. Copying and pasting static HTML representations will only work for the most trivial cases.
So we’re back to the same tools that every other forum would use: links, screenshots, animated GIFs and videos. And to be fair, those tools work really well, even on mobile devices.
As a simple, actionable proposal from this thread, I’d like to see a broader practice of posts including more screenshots and animated gifs.
I see this as a simple courtesy to readers who are not in a position to follow links (or – even worse – to drag JSON files into tiddlywikil.com). It’s part of a general need for everyone posting to the forum to take the time to consider the needs of other users.
There are some well-understood technical things we could do to improve things, too. For example, we could do would be to provide better open graph data for static renderings of tiddlers. The build process could use a headless browser to take an automated screenshot of each tiddler that would then be displayed by social tools like Discourse.
The “Open Graph” thing …
@Mark_S , thanks much for the link to your proposal about Open Graph at https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/6499!
Here is the same link in Open Graph …
TBH, I’m not sure how many users here understand what it is, nor how it works.
I didn’t for a long time.
I do agree with you and @jeremyruston that it is a good way to link to resources as the resulting embed in another site (like Discourse) is informative and lightweight.
Here is another example for readers …
Since it can be also used in Static pages it is, potentially, a very helpful increased networking aspect for TW.
Best wishes, TT
Right. Screenshots seem very easy to do nowadays. And they do work well in posts online and in most email systems.
I thought that a very interesting comment!
I’m not adverse to doing that; i.e. test JSON in tiddlywiki.com.
But partly what I’m trying to point to is it all gets a bit esoteric having to do that.
It is kinda “indirect”.
My broad thought behind this, and other threads I started recently, was the more we can directly show TW in Discourse, rather than talk about it, the better.
My final comment,
TT
