Now we process the rendered HTML of tiddlers, which allows us to
process HTML generated by MS Word. In fact, the HTML that MS Word
generates is so awful, I’ve instead been using Mammoth to do the
conversion: https://github.com/mwilliamson/mammoth.js
Also some necessary improvements to the fake dom implementation.
They don’t get automatically decoded when the browser reads the
resulting HTML. So, instead, we’ll solve
1e9e1a1fdc by switching to double quotes
for attribute values.
This may cause backwards compatibility problems for people relying on
the block mode parsing, but it’s much better for the rest of us as it
avoids an unsightly paragraph tag
Stop the logger from creating alert tiddlers on the server. They
propagate to the client but are not deletable from the client because
they are in the `$:/temp` namespace.
cc @loleg
The previous fix changed the scrolling behaviour such that it only
scrolled to the top of a tiddler if the tiddler was entirely offscreen.
It wasn’t entirely satisfactory because scrolling was prevented even if
only a few pixels of a tiddler are in view. This commit ensures that
the scroll does occur if less than 50 pixels of the target is in view
@aelocson here’s an alternative fix for #981, as discussed in
https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/commit/691e5719a4ff74a04d389bd1
26ba2a69e7651a2a#commitcomment-9848682
It does seem a lot nicer. It avoids the problem you raised, and also
avoids scrolling when a permalink is used.
I suspect that we’d need to make the hard-coded 50 pixels be
configurable.
Cecily and Zoomin story views use a document.body that is smaller than
the document.documentElement. We were just clearing the popups on
clicks on the document.body Clicks on the document element (ie, on the
background of the page) were not being trapped, meaning that you
couldn’t dismiss a popup.
@felixhayashi I’m afraid I haven’t used your pull request as there were
a few details that I wanted to do differently. The main change is that
these changes allow both a param string and hashmap to be specified.
With this commit tag pills will now choose for the foreground colour
either the current palette “foreground” or “background” colours,
according to which has the higher contrast. It’s something @gernert has
expressed an interest in in the past, and I’ve tended to agree that it
is a nice piece of polish. It opens up the possibility of paler colours
for tag pills than are currently possible.
The trouble is that in order to implement it I’ve had to bring in a
third party library for parsing CSS colours. It weighs in just over
9KB, making quite a lot of weight for such a small feature. I don’t see
any other immediate uses for the colour parsing library either.
So, I’m undecided at the moment whether this should stay in the core.
