Yes, I replied to Proposal: render fieldnames as links, and see what's possible with fieldname nodes! - #2 by TW_Tones and it contributes to this conversation.
Tiddlers with the name of a fieldname could have within it a set of fields named with the field- prefix like your field-description, allowing the tiddler to also be used for other purposes. Although a tool may be needed to be used to extract for reuse in another wiki.
An example may be domain, which can be a tag that defines what part of your life it related to eg work, personal, play, family, friends. the domain field can have one (or more of these domain names in its value). It would be a tag, a field definition, a source of field values and documentation about what a domain is.
I think this is the most obviouse next step
What ever we do in the future we do need to choose a default, and for the experimentation I am tempted to start with either direct fieldname or the aformentioned ▭ fieldname.
- Can only be (easily) created via the new fieldname process
- makes sence to start with an extewndable cascade for this.
- Allowing us to change the default
- Allowing the cascade to address fields via wildcards with a prefix or suffix seperatly.
- Eg all
-linkfields can be handled one way and we dont need a definition for every field.
- Eg all
I also think it safe to aggree that all field related fieldnames be prefixes field- or ▭ , in part because we can then use a wild card prefix to list them all.
- if using
▭we can make a tool to access the symbol (and others as they arrise)