[tw] Presenting: RichLinks - external links presented as objects

[Mat]

The TWaddler, inspired by a request
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/nwsbRISkYaU>, proudly
presents...

RichLinks <http://richlinks.tiddlyspot.com/>


<:-)


P.S - If you like TiddlyWiki, TELL your friends
<http://tiddlywiki.com/#HelpingTiddlyWiki>.

[Thomas Elmiger]

Hi Mat

Thank you for this really great functionality!

The tweet did not show up for me when I tried yesterday, but it does now. Everything else seemed to work immediately. Great demos!

Have you thought about making a richlink-plugin?

Have a great Sunday,
Thomas

[Mat]

Thanks Thomas!

The tweet did not show up for me when I tried yesterday, but it does now.
Interestingly that is how it behaved for me too. But that also happened
when I tried the TW Twitter plugin itself, i.e without RichLink. I believe
a page reload made the tweet appear.

Post by Thomas Elmiger
Everything else seemed to work immediately. Great demos!

I'm curious, does the *soundcloud *link play the song without issues? It
doesn't for me in Chrome but it works in FF. I corresponded with Birthe who
also reported irregularities for different OS's (i.e not browsers). But
again, this is unlikely to have anything to do with RichLink which is just
a "shell".


Have you thought about making a richlink-plugin?
Yeah... but I'm not sure what to put into it. The main macro yes, but much
other stuff is made for customization and none of the templates are
required. And it needs Tobias' split plugin which opens a generally
interesting question on how to present a plugin that requires another (I
posted this issue <https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2843>apropos
this).

Thanks for you feedback Thomas!

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

Indeed there are issues with Soundcloud in Chrome. I don't understand what
the issue is but users regularly report it.

My 2 cents,
Josiah

Mat wrote...

Post by Mat
I'm curious, does the *soundcloud *link play the song without issues? It
doesn't for me in Chrome

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat & Thomas

Just FYI, the JavaScript that supports the Twitter functionality basically
initiates a single, unrepeated talk with "mother Twitter" on load. The
Twitter bits you see are built on load. Occasionally there are glitches in
the to-and-fro with mother. Reload usually sorts them. As you realize,
nothing is visible after a change on Twitter embed stuff until re-load.

Josiah

Mat wrote ...

Thomas ...
The tweet did not show up for me when I tried yesterday, but it does now.
Interestingly that is how it behaved for me too. But that also happened
when I tried the TW Twitter plugin itself, i.e without RichLink. I believe
a page reload made the tweet appear.

[Mat]

BTW, anyone who thinks TW should feature something like this as a standard,
please add a like to this github request
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2857>.

<:-)

[HC Haase]

This is awesome.. would be cool to have this as standard.

Post by Mat
BTW, anyone who thinks TW should feature something like this as a standard,
please add a like to this github request
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2857>.
<:-)

[PMario]

Post by Mat
BTW, anyone who thinks TW should feature something like this as a standard,
please add a like to this github request
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2857>.

Not really a fan of this being default. ... eg: If you load content from
3rd parties like ths, you ping them and provide a whole load of information
about your current status and activity. eg: IP address used, which gives a
good approximation of your current location. Content, that you are
interested in, at the current moment ... and so on.

This is a nice plugin, and it should stay that way! Everyone, who wants to
use it, should be able to do so. ... AND ... everyone, who doesn't want to
expose private information, should be free to do so as well.

just my 2cents
mario

[Mat]

Post by PMario

Post by Mat
BTW, anyone who thinks TW should feature something like this as a standard,
please add a like to this github request
<https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/issues/2857>.

Not really a fan of this being default. ... eg: If you load content from
3rd parties like ths, you ping them

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. The core wouldn't
necessarily have to provide any "pinging" templates at all. It could
feature the equivalent of the richlink main macro and the (customizable)
dictionary, without templates... but, it could (should!) IMO provide at
least templates for *local* files. Many people want to show e.g pdf
documents and it would be super simple for people to make e.g nice image
albums or audio or video libraries for local files.

...AND if the user does want the pinging commercial services, then he can
rather easily make those too.


<:-)

[PMario]

Hi Mat,

There are several ways to achieve similar results, but if the core dictates
one approach we need to stick with it. In my opinion stuff like this is
perfectly fine as a plugin.

If the core renders external links, they should behave like browser links.
They should open new tabs. .. I personally don't want to open a PDF inside
a tiddler. I want it to be a link to a new tab.

Plugins also have the advantage, that the development can be completely
independent from the core. So the update / feature request cycle can be
much faster.

So my proposal is to improve the plugin discovery mechanism, instead of
including every possible extension into the core.

-m

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Cari

I have no idea on the underlying tech issues.

*I do feel we are selling TW short by NOT having ways that users can find
brilliant plugins like Mat's without having to read f***g google groups
24/7. *

So, overall, I feel PMario's "improve the plugin discovery mechanism" is
likely the rightest direction if we want anyone but Constant Readers to
have a clue what is avialable.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Mat]

Post by PMario
There are several ways to achieve similar results, but if the core
dictates one approach we need to stick with it. In my opinion stuff like
this is perfectly fine as a plugin.

From a marketing perspective, this is almost a given. IMO this is one of
those things that people expect in modern comparable systems.

It is even so fundamental that much of it is part of HTML5. Integrating it
into TW would only bring the functionality closer to the user for easy
application. To use Josiahs term here above, "we're selling TW short" by
not featuring this in the standard distro.


If the core renders external links, they should behave like browser links.

Post by PMario
They should open new tabs. .. I personally don't want to open a PDF inside
a tiddler. I want it to be a link to a new tab.

Ok, but again, which templates to include is another matter. If no template
is identified for a link... then it's just a normal link.

Actually, I'm reminded of the setting for tiddler titles - "show as text
VS. show as link". External links could be "show embedded (where template
exists) VS. show as plain link".

So: No forced pinging and no forced display - which seem to be your main
objections (and I agree with them!) Rather, only the "infrastructure", i.e
the equivalents of the richlink main macro and the dictionary, to simplify
custom templates.


<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Great Utility. Both works and also highlights how good/easy TW can be.
These are the kinds of mature utilities we need.

Three suggestions ...

1 - Release it as a proper plugin.

2 - Don't bother with options on the various "sites or file types". Just
wrap them ALL in a plugin (the overhead is small) and give note you can
delete what you don't need and make new ones.

3 - Give one example of using relative paths (is that doable?) such that
you could author locally and then upload & still have it work.

4 - Mention you can use the "Stamp" tool to insert a boilerplate for it in
the editor.

Best wishes
Josiah

Post by Mat
The TWaddler, inspired by a request
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/nwsbRISkYaU>, proudly
presents...
RichLinks
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Frichlinks.tiddlyspot.com%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGfi83foQq0HULWfm64xvcPiLpydA>

[Mat]

@Josiah,

I updated the Soundcloud demo to mention their users have reported
problems. Thanks for info.
info to mention

1 - Release it as a proper plugin.

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
2 - Don't bother with options on the various "sites or file types". Just
wrap them ALL in a plugin (the overhead is small) and give note you can
delete what you don't need and make new ones.

That's the problem though; you can't delete what you don't want from a
plugin. And even if I add only, say, the main macro and the dictionary into
a plugin, there's still the need for the Split plugin.


3 - Give one example of using relative paths (is that doable?) such that

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
you could author locally and then upload & still have it work.

Please describe a bit more what you mean.


4 - Mention you can use the "Stamp" tool to insert a boilerplate for it in

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
the editor.

Good point. Might look into that. If anyone makes such a stamp, I'd be
happy to include it.


<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat ...

That's the problem though; you can't delete what you don't want from a

Post by Thomas Elmiger
plugin

Oops, sorry. I never knew!

Josiah

Post by Thomas Elmiger

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
2 - Don't bother with options on the various "sites or file types". Just
wrap them ALL in a plugin (the overhead is small) and give note you can
delete what you don't need and make new ones.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

I did a test as follows that confirms the plugin supports relative paths,
at least for the ".jpg" file type. I haven't tried the other types yet but
assume they will too.

The code...

<<richlink "img/masterdon_havisham_ch8.jpg" "Havisham">>

... works identically for a local TW and for the same TW put online. I hope
this clarifies what I meant. It also answered my own question :-).

Best wishes
Josiah

Mat wrote ...

Josiah suggested ...
3 - Give one example of using relative paths (is that doable?) such that

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
you could author locally and then upload & still have it work.

Please describe a bit more what you mean.

[Mat]

Josiah,

"relative paths" - OK, I think you're referring to what I would call "local
files".

Thanks for your test! I hadn't investigated this but, yes, it does work -
it is a matter of using a link/path with a supported filetype ending (e.g
....jpg). Any difference in behaviour from external links should not be
because of RichLinks. Anyway, thanks. I should update the docs to make this
clear.


<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

I think of "local files" as just those on my PC. But I think of "relative
links" for use both locally AND online. The point being to create something
that works whatever the context.

J, x

Post by Mat
Josiah,
"relative paths" - OK, I think you're referring to what I would call
"local files".
Thanks for your test! I hadn't investigated this but, yes, it does work -
it is a matter of using a link/path with a supported filetype ending (e.g
....jpg). Any difference in behaviour from external links should not be
because of RichLinks. Anyway, thanks. I should update the docs to make this
clear.
<:-)

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

Hi Mat,

Very nice!

Am I missing something -- is there a way to use this with PDF?

Thanks!
Mark

Post by Mat
The TWaddler, inspired by a request
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/nwsbRISkYaU>, proudly
presents...
RichLinks <http://richlinks.tiddlyspot.com/>
<:-)
P.S - If you like TiddlyWiki, TELL your friends
<http://tiddlywiki.com/#HelpingTiddlyWiki>.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mark S.

It works fine with PDF.

The issue may be PDF does not always work fine with it.

That is not a RichLinks issue per se. Its most likely a browser settings
issue. PDFs can be more complicated than other file types.

As a start I suggest checking the browser settings to ensure that its using
its own "preview" / "viewer" and not a third-party app for PDF.

Best wishes
Josiah

Post by 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki
Am I missing something -- is there a way to use this with PDF?

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

On the issues for PDF display ... is there a way that the RichLink can
elegantly degrade into a normal link IF an embeddable viewer is not
available?

I'm not sure how much of a regular occurrence PDF display failure in-page
is now. But it does happen because the handling of the PDF file type in
browsers, at least in the past, was quite complex and often involved
invoking 3rd party apps.

Just comments
Josiah

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Mark S.
It works fine with PDF.
The issue may be PDF does not always work fine with it.
That is not a RichLinks issue per se. Its most likely a browser settings
issue. PDFs can be more complicated than other file types.
As a start I suggest checking the browser settings to ensure that its
using its own "preview" / "viewer" and not a third-party app for PDF.
Best wishes
Josiah

Post by 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki
Am I missing something -- is there a way to use this with PDF?

[Mat]

Josiah,

... is there a way that the RichLinks can elegantly degrade into a normal

link IF an embeddable viewer is not available?

That's a good idea - for all templates! If the rich embedding fails, the
link should show! Currently, nothing is shown which is bad. I'll see what I
can do.

Thanks!

<:-)

['Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki]

You're right. I must have done something wrong with my first test.

Text also works, which is good because text doesn't work with
_canonical_uri on my system.

Thanks,
Mark

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Mark S.
It works fine with PDF.
The issue may be PDF does not always work fine with it.
That is not a RichLinks issue per se. Its most likely a browser settings
issue. PDFs can be more complicated than other file types.
As a start I suggest checking the browser settings to ensure that its
using its own "preview" / "viewer" and not a third-party app for PDF.
Best wishes
Josiah

Post by 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki
Am I missing something -- is there a way to use this with PDF?

[Mat]

Mark S,

Am I missing something -- is there a way to use this with PDF?
I felt compelled to split out the demo for PDF
<http://richlinks.tiddlyspot.com/#Richlink%20to%20pdf> because some
browsers insist on triggering download for PDFs. But, yeah, it does work,
and eventual "problems" is likely not because of RichLink.

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

I been looking at the ".txt" file type.

I been looking around to see if there is a simple way to wrap long lines in
"objects" of that type to make texts with long lines wrap so you can
properly read them. I haven't found any. Maybe its a fundamental
limitation? Because its not a part of TW file you can't enforce any styling
on it? I'm not clear if JavaScript might be able to do that or not?

Best wishes
Josiah

Post by Mat
The TWaddler, inspired by a request
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/nwsbRISkYaU>, proudly
presents...
RichLinks <http://richlinks.tiddlyspot.com/>
<:-)
P.S - If you like TiddlyWiki, TELL your friends
<http://tiddlywiki.com/#HelpingTiddlyWiki>.

[Mat]

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
I been looking at the ".txt" file type.
I been looking around to see if there is a simple way to wrap long lines
in "objects" of that type so you can properly read them. I haven't found
any. Maybe its a fundamental limitation?

Not sure what you mean. Does the text not wrap properly for you in the
object? I.e can you not put anything...

<object data="$link$" type="text/plain" style="width:HERE; height:$height$;
" scrolling:yes>
<a href="$link$" target="_blank">$link$</a> (missing or not supported)
</object>


Because its not a part of TW file you can't enforce any styling on it? I'm

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
not clear if JavaScript might be able to do that or not?

I believe <object> has the same limitations as iframes, i.e that you can
style the object/iframe but not the content because the content is on
someone elses domain. BUT there are tricks that could enable it, involving
JavaScript, where you e.g scrape the content and reproduce it locally. This
would, as far as I can tell, be particularly suitable for plain texts.

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

To clarify, what I am seeing in Firefox on PC is this from your demo ...


Without wrapping of paragraphs to the "object window" width its not really
readable.

Best wishes
Josiah.

Post by Mat

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
I been looking at the ".txt" file type.
I been looking around to see if there is a simple way to wrap long lines
in "objects" of that type so you can properly read them. I haven't found
any. Maybe its a fundamental limitation?

Not sure what you mean. Does the text not wrap properly for you in the
object? I.e can you not put anything...
<object data="$link$" type="text/plain" style="width:HERE; height:$height$
; " scrolling:yes>
<a href="$link$" target="_blank">$link$</a> (missing or not supported)
</object>
Because its not a part of TW file you can't enforce any styling on it? I'm

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
not clear if JavaScript might be able to do that or not?

I believe <object> has the same limitations as iframes, i.e that you can
style the object/iframe but not the content because the content is on
someone elses domain. BUT there are tricks that could enable it, involving
JavaScript, where you e.g scrape the content and reproduce it locally. This
would, as far as I can tell, be particularly suitable for plain texts.
<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

I just tried the same in Chrome on PC & it comes wrapped and with correct
paragraph breaks.... like this bit ...


Best wishes
Josiah

[Mat]

Josiah

.txt files wrapping - You're right. It seems it wraps well in Chrome but
not in Firefox. I googled around but find no solution :-/

Again, of course, this is not because of RichLink, and likely not TW.
Frustrating with all these browser differences.

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

The whole fantasy of "Web standards" makes me apoplectic. Standards, my
ass. Ending up having to deal with someone else's problem basically put me
completely off getting into net stuff beyond the superficial level.

I take my hat off to people who can handle the mess it really is.

*Rant off*

Josiah

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Josiah
.txt files wrapping - You're right. It seems it wraps well in Chrome but
not in Firefox. I googled around but find no solution :-/
Again, of course, this is not because of RichLink, and likely not TW.
Frustrating with all these browser differences.
<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

At the practical level its perhaps worth in the documentation noting that
the .txt works WELL in Chrome though poorly in Firefox. Its worth it for
the Chrome IMO, even though I don't use it much, as its is the majority
browser.

Best wìshes
Josiah

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Josiah
.txt files wrapping - You're right. It seems it wraps well in Chrome but
not in Firefox. I googled around but find no solution :-/
Again, of course, this is not because of RichLink, and likely not TW.
Frustrating with all these browser differences.
<:-)

[Stephen Wilson]

I'm probably just being slow...but how does the syntax for the iframes
one look?

Thought I could update the template to this:

<iframe src="link" width="100%" height="413" style="border:0px;"
allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
<span style="display:block; padding-top:2px; color:#818181; font-size:13px;"
<a href="Direct Link to embeded page" style=" color:#818181; font-size:13px;
" target="_blank">Title</a>, by <a href="Direct Link to home page" style="
color:#818181; font-size:13px;" target="_blank">Homepage name</a></span>
<br>

which looks like:

http://stephenteacher.tiddlyspot.com/#KaTeX%20Functions

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Ciao Mat
At the practical level its perhaps worth in the documentation noting that
the .txt works WELL in Chrome though poorly in Firefox. Its worth it for
the Chrome IMO, even though I don't use it much, as it is the majority
browser.
Best wìshes
Josiah

Post by @TiddlyTweeter
Josiah
.txt files wrapping - You're right. It seems it wraps well in Chrome but
not in Firefox. I googled around but find no solution :-/
Again, of course, this is not because of RichLink, and likely not TW.
Frustrating with all these browser differences.
<:-)

[Mat]

@Stephen, I'm guessing you're referring to that the content of your iframe,
i.e the embedded page, does not "adjust" to the size of the iframe, yes?
I'm afraid that is up to the embedded page as far as I know. I believe you
can "clip" the embedded page, using the deprecated but (I think) functional
CSS clip attribute, but it's a bit messy.

On my screen, if I hide the sidebar at least the horizontal scroll is
avoided. Matter of screen size.

<:-)

[Ste Wilson]

No.. Much simpler question :)

<<richlink "link here">> all works fine.
<<richlink iframe "link here">> or
<<richlink "iframe link here">>

Or any other combination of " and >> I have tried don't get me an iframe :)