"section" delimiters in tiddler text

1

tiddlers are all ready (at lest historically)
comprised from sections

<head>
<key:value(s)>\n
\n\n
<body>

it appears the use of pragma
creates a defacto body-head section for such definitions

so could there be an advantage to officially supporting
sections as a wiki construct ?

eg

this reminds me of reading

Add a new ^id syntax

.To see [s]source code[/s] {!text}(macro pramiters) perchance to write more - #4 by TW_Tones

both make use of “section” delimiters in tiddler text

it seams like the concept might be usefull for a variety of use cases

make me wander if some standard tw-section syntax
might be a useful addition to wikitext?

eg:TiddlyWiki5/pull/7744 - where it appears an implementation exists

suggests ^id syntax

previously elsewhere i have seen named sections

/* section:sect-name */

used , so perhaps

<!-- sect:sect-name – >
with ^id as a short hand

and presumably also a sect list/get filter operators ?

:thinking:

2

The HTML HEAD and BODY elements are part of the invisible wiki.html document.

MDN states for HEAD:

The <head> HTML element contains machine-readable information (metadata) about the document, like its title, scripts, and style sheets. There can be only one <head> element in an HTML document.

MDN states for BODY

The <body> HTML element represents the content of an HTML document. There can be only one <body> element in a document.

So it would create invalid HTML file to add more of them into a wiki document.

3

I have read this and dont understand the why?

“section” delimiters in tiddler text

Is this for internal navigation, because I found a better answer for that. We dont need unique ID attribute to do this anymore.

Otherwise if it is to allow inner tiddler addressing we should just use html tags or widgets, and boost the parsers knowledge of them eg use the <section> tag, then you can also apply other html/calls/styles and more.

4

this

was attempting to convey

i didnt mean the html document
but historically the “.tid” plain text format

.A question about .tid file format - #16 by wiki_user

and how there is an implicit head section (in tiddler text/body) for pragma definitions

made me ponder the use of explicit sections

for the purpose of what ever you come up with
who knows the limpets of possibility ;]

2 different examples both use the same ‘secton-marker’ concept
and pragma implicitly require placing above other content

im asking
could explicit adoption of sections generally be useful ?
for other cases

5

I would assume it would be useful for multiple multiline fields (which I’ve heard mentioned a few times as a future plan / wishlist / something)

But I’d also assume the solution to multiline fields would either be

multiline field name: line1\nline2\nline3\n\nline5\netc

or

use what email has learned with solving this for mime, and end up with something like (total hypothetical with nonsense field data follows)

Title: hello worlds
Tags: planets greetings
Content-boundary="------------8J5NSRKsN8k5WiOj0fI003hk"

------------8J5NSRKsN8k5WiOj0fI003hk
Field-name: multiline 1

Hello world, I am a multiline text field

Would you like to be my friend?
------------8J5NSRKsN8k5WiOj0fI003hk
Field-name: multiline 2

Hello mars, I am also a multiline text field, let's be friends

...tomorrow?
------------8J5NSRKsN8k5WiOj0fI003hk
I am the normal text field

I am multiline by default

however, unless there is a big genuine need for it, I’d suspect this type of thing would be more coding trouble than it’s worth

[edit: I just re-read the thread and apparently my brain skipped tracks completely and all this is irrelevant to the above. nevermind me!]

6

thanks for the example !

putting (hubble bubble) coding trouble aside momentary

my question was more in consideration of

https://tiddlywiki.com/#Philosophy%20of%20Tiddlers

see also : [Question] How much is in a Tiddler?

would sections compromises tiddler minimum/minimalism

and end up encouraging tiddler maximum trend growth
leading to instability?

7

Not really. In TWclassic we did have the possibility to transclude sections of a tiddler into an other tiddler. The section was marked by a heading.

The main problem this has, is maintainability and also performance. Back-transclusions could not be tracked with TWc. Partial transclusions can not be cached.

It also is “a bit” against the tiddler philosophy. But that’s subjective. Minimalism is in the eye of the beholder.

Transcluding sections, would encourage longer tiddlers.

But in a first iteration of creating plain text content, there often is no real structure. IMO it needs several iterations of refactoring, until a “natural” structure starts to build up.

At that time it may be possible to split tiddler content into several tiddlers.

IMO a good example is the range-operator. At the moment of writing (Oct. 26 2025) it contains the reference info and examples.

Is this a problem?

If we search for range examples in the right sidebar, the “range Operator” tiddler is not listed under titles.

In contrast to eg. search examples, which shows 2 titles.

It’s not a big problem in the context of all things, but it is a “consistency” problem in the context of the TW documentation.

So we should probably fix that, which makes my “range example” irrelevant. … Is this a problem? :wink:

-m