Tinderbox Meetup, Sunday, July 12, 2026

Bring your projects and puzzlements! Everyone is welcome. Long-time Tinderbox users, new Tinderbox users, and non-Tinderbox users are very welcome to join in on the discussion.

9 AM Pacific Time
Noon Eastern time
1300 São Paulo
1600 UTC
1700 London
1800 Paris
2130 Delhi

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6179249044?pwd=c0szQnZaaGUrWGsxalZKK1dSejFEZz09&omn=81068119678

Meeting ID: 617 924 9044
Passcode: tinderbox

For more details and to join the conversation with the Tinderbox community, visit the Tinderbox Forum: https://forum.eastgate.com/.Bring your projects and puzzlements! Everyone is welcome. Long-time Tinderbox users, new Tinderbox users, and non-Tinderbox users are very welcome to join in on the discussion.

1 Like

TBX Meetup 12 JUL 26: Deep Review of Linking In Tinderbox and Attribute Browser

I assume there’s to be another meetup this weekend. Which day, Saturday or Sunday? I’ll try to make it. I have a beginner’s puzzlement!

Yup…posted it a few minutes ago. It was Saturday. BTW, we did review attribute browser for you. What is your puzzlement?

Thanks. The ongoing puzzlement still presents itself in the Attribute Browser. But I suspect that the glitch is deeper than AB display and more on the level of making pieces connect as they should.

I wasn’t free at the time of this meetup and so watched the video when it was posted. Wow! So much valuable information … this is a must watch and it finally got me to understand the incredible power of links in Tinderbox, and also how to effectively use the Attribute Browser. Definitely time well spent!

2 Likes

Useful presentation!

One thing not covered: how to best use the directionality of links.

Not understanding which way a link “should” go inhibits my use of them. I see the built-in footnote (Note > Footnote) sets up links in both directions.

There are different ways to get to the same place. I know, I know. But conventions on direction can be important. For example:

Barney Google bet his horse would win the prize.
When the horses ran that day, Spark Plug ran the other way.[1]

After that disaster, the poor fellow was turned out of the house and home by a wife three times his size, and had to live with his horse.

Where can I learn more about conventions on directionality of links for different uses? Are there some helpful rules of thumb to get started?


  1. Some racetracks go counterclockwise, others clockwise, while dog tracks always go counterclockwise. ↩︎

1 Like

There isn’t a firm convention here. At the base design level, Tinderbox cleaves to original hypertext notions: links are two-way and stored outside the note’s text, i.e. not in $Text. To get a glimpse into the latter, see The XML TBX format . You see the links in the $Text pane because the app overlays the links from the linkbase onto the text. This is different from post Web-era designs that adopt the HTML approach of coding (so hard-wiring) the links into the text.

So whilst links are drawn (where drawn, e.g. maps) with a source and destination, the stored link is between two $ID values … pertinently they aren’t altered if either end moves in or between containers. Ignoring the visual style, compare Map and Hyperbolic view. The latter is drawn using links—regardless of direction—as the framework for which notes are shown: not linked, not shown.

I think the built-in footnotes having explicit back links (not to footnote, footnote to note) was likely for map users to ‘see’ a backlink. It is the case the outbound (text) links are most easily seen, and translate to HTML or Markdown, etc., export. But as shown in the meeting, Command-apostrophe ( ⌘+') or menu NoteGo Back will traverse the last-used link backwards.

A recent addition to aTbRef articles is to add a list of inbound links to the end of an article. This allows the web user to follow inbound links (in reverse, so to speak) as easily as outbound ones.

A lot of apps that use Web-style linking (links embedded in text) can’t do this unless extra mechanism are in place for back-traversal of inbound links, Roam is a case in point—there will be others, but the main point it is not an automatic feature.

All that said, does the order of linking matter. In general, No, but consider:

  • Consider ‘reading’ your work either in in-app preview or exported to HTML/MD/etc. Which seems the most likely direction?
  • For reading use, you may choose to actually create a pair of (visually) explicit text links: A → B and B → A.
  • You navigate forwards more than you back up but Tinderbox’s ‘Go Back’ is always there (but often forgotten).
  • Don’t overlook Roadmap view (menu ViewRoadmap, or ⌘+⌥+⇧+R)., as a pop-over or stand-alone dialog to help navigation. IOW, don’t over think the link direction.
  • The link creation pop-over allows you to swap source/destination, i.e. the link direction at creation time. Maybe you started wrong, or was easy to trigger thine like in the ‘wrong’ direction, but can be fixed as point of making.
  • Action code allows traversal/querying in either direction, so again you don’t have to over-think originally created direction.

If you want to export footnotes with their source text, see here.

HTH :slight_smile:

†. The content detail is slightly out of date but the main structure of the XML and the use of a linkbase (the <links> element) still remain.

‡. An example link: link tag

3 Likes

Mark,

I’m sure this is just a typo, but the shortcut to follow a link back is cmd-' – i.e. ‘cmd-single quote’.

[cmd-, (comma) is the universal MacOs shortcut for settings/preferences.]

Just it case it confuses someone…

1 Like

I’ve fixed it , thanks.

1 Like

Helpful details in the explanation. Thanks! I now better understand the basics of the mechanics of navigating forward and back. I have been making liberal use of the built-in Note > Footnote feature, in conjunction with Markdown so the MultiMarkdown processor does the heavy lifting of numbering and renumbering (no Tinderbox action code) for export. That lets me have linked footnotes within Tinderbox and also the same linked footnotes on export or preview or streaming.

This linked footnotes functionality is fantastic. However, for other links I still can’t help wondering about directionality.

I note that links on a map are explicitly one-directional. It seems I have to have an arrow (or circle) at one end or the other. On one end, and one end only.

What is the thinking behind that? In “map language” are there at least loose conventions, perhaps dating back to the dawn of hypertext, for which end gets the arrow for common types like agree, clarify, disagree, response, etc.?

I think the design thinking behind the directionality is a questioner @eastgate. Perhaps for a future meet-up (neither they nor I can make this weekend). But it’s a useful retrospective thing to cover ‘on the record’ so to speak.

visually in the map I can see that if a link has a conceptual direction, not showing it on the map might have confusing signals for some.

But the bottom of his is why Tinderbox links have a sense of a direction. I suspect there is some post-Web pragmatic implementation of hypertext ideas there. The Web is only a subset of hypertext, but the Web is—for the vast majority of us—what we understand when we hear ‘hypertext’. On the web links are explicitly one way—in implementation—even if, as in Tinderbox, they may be traversed either way.

In my own research I quickly moved beyond visual links as, pragmatically, the subject matter was too big for the v5-era map. But once you know a link is there, you may choose to see it but don’t have to see it. It’s there and you can traverse/compute/etc. across links as you need.

Nested in this is an implicit move from ‘simple’ note-taking as you might do on a clay tablet, stone, wax tablet, or on paper/print, to the digital domain where we can do much much more.

1 Like