I’m a frequent user still of TWC, but I am curious if there would be any interest in connecting the TWC Google Group much in the same way the regular TiddlyWiki Google Group is connected here.
There’s been quite a bit of improvement thanks to @YakovL and it might be nice to have a little more visibility. And of course there is always room for updating the docs.
The big advantage of Talk is, that it focuses on TiddlyWiki5 only. In my opinion it was a mistake to mix TWc and TW5 in the same Google group. It caused a lot of confusion. It’s not worth it to move this confusion over to this forum too.
Just my personal opinion.
I guess, some interop discussions and announcements can be relevant here (like if, say, MainTiddlyServer starts supporting TW5, too), but my previous attempts to talk about interop were not met with enthusiasm, so I’m not quite sure.
Perhaps occasional announcements, like new releases (Jeremy shared 2.10.1, likewise we can mention 2.10.2, too) won’t hurt, but neither they seem of huge interest here.
As for mixing all the discussions, I also think that it’s not reasonable to do so, just to avoid unnecessary increasing of congnitive load.
The only thing that I’m not quite sure about is a place to discuss meta-topics and ideas, where users of both TWC, TW5 and maybe some other platforms (like Obsidian or AnyType?) may benefit by bringing and discussing ideas together and sharing experiences. For instance, I think TW5 users may benefit from considering what was implemented in ExtensionsExplorerPlugin and everybody can benefit from discussing how to struct extensions indexing (taking into account more complicated cases, like multi-tiddler extensions, automated indexing of existing repos, proper handling of forks that are maintained more actively than the originals, etc). Another example: I know that the guys in Obsidian community are actively introducing AI into their plugins which may be useful for other platforms.
Hi @YakovL good to see you here.
TiddlyWiki Classic and TiddlyWiki 5 are different versions of the same song. There are important differences, but from the outside they both do the same thing and work in exactly the same way. That is why it is possible for them to share so much infrastructure, and we see Tiddlyhost supporting TW5 and TWC side-by-side.
However, these commonalities are perhaps more relevant for developers and project organisers than for end users, who would typically use one or the other. So I don’t think it would be helpful to mix up the end user discussion forums.
I would like to see more discussion of meta-topics and potential cross-developments, and so perhaps we might take steps to facilitate and welcome that discussion.
One specific case in point is that we could work together to get TWC working on Multi Wiki Server. There is an existing TiddlyWeb plugin for TWC that should make a good starting point.
Agreed.
As an end-user of both I need specificity that is clear on usage. Adding “Classic” to a TW5 discussion Group could complexify things far too much. TW5 already has got quite (sub-version) complex and Classic would well muddy it up even more?
BUT I do think the obvious continuing viability of Classic does deserve much more attention! Somehow, somewhere.
For some lightweight apps it is still good and maybe even better. And that is testament to the TW long-term viability.
Just an observer, TT