Thanks for considering my idea @pmario
This depends on what demand you put on memory. Lets say I have a hundred titles of 80 characters long, I need 80,000 characters. Now let us consider I have 10 lists of these titles in different orders, I need the same number of bytes, for each list ,if I use the titles or 80,000 x 10 + 80,000 (original) = 880,000 bytes, if however rather than store the titles in my list I store the VST, I only have 100 titles, so the VST titles are no more than 3 characters long, or 300 for a full list of VST’s, now lets have out 10 different lists and the total space is approximately 3,300 bytes compared to 880,000 bytes.
- In the above estimate I am not counting the separators for both cases.
So now Imagin larger data sets, for example if one had tiddlers for 40,000 words or phrases suddenly the memory usage between the two approaches becomes substantial.
- No I am not talking about UUIDs, I am just talking about a unique code. It can be as simple as 1 to N.
- The fact we can easily have a 999,999 VST’s with no more than 6 bytes there may be no need to compress them, but we could eg Hexadecimal.
- Even encodings such as Hexidecimal are human readable. But there is no need to read them. Just think of it as a sort field.
Because we want to see the long title, not the VST, the VST is just a means to an end.
- Having tiddlers with a title based on an algorithm is unfriendly, and not easy to use.
- Having a field containing a code based on an algorithm, is much more user friendly, because the users interact with it through an interface, not directly.
- I don’t think so because they are not regular titles, they are not much more than a caption or index number, they are preset in (some) tiddlers, unchangeable, maybe even hidden.
- There purpose is to allow VST proxy titles for list fields.
Without spelling out the details, I would like to allow my tiddlers to have a custom reordering of the view template elements. On my current GTD wiki I have 62 items with the $:/tags/ViewTemplate tags, so each tiddler would need more than 2.2Kb of a list field which I could reduce to less than 500bytes.