What is the hold up, please? All big Markdown-supported apps already can use TextBundle. I find it kind of strange that no-one seems to care to get this to Obsidian…
This is a plugin idea thread, not a feature request. Ergo the “hold up” is that no one has built a plugin for this. If folks are determined, maybe they can offer to pay someone.
Maybe you are right, I have no idea, but there is the possibility that this could never make it as a plugin and it would make much more sense to add this to the core of obsidian.
So let’s make this a feature request?
Some feedback from a dev would be great.
If the devs commented on all 4000+ open FRs and plugin ideas, however, they certainly would not have the bandwidth to do any development!
I see, thank you for the insight! I was not aware.
I would love to see Textbundle supported in Obsidian. It would improve the markdown asset management ecosystem by a lot.
also when looking at other similar apps like obsidian. I see the support for TextBundle. So please make it happen also for Obsidian.
Very interested too. I think it can make the difference in using obsidian as the main note tool, ba use with text bundle support you achieve then full portability of your notes, including attachments
Obsidian’s robustness shines, but when it comes to attachment management, things get chaotic and that hinders the efficiency of my vault.
- When capturing web pages, either I get only markdown text without images, or I add images to the vault where they remain loosely connected to my note and stored in a messy asset folder.
- Scanned paper invoices along with notes necessitate manual handling of images when notes are relocated.
- In cases like a note containing personal photos, images remain detached, making potential migrations cumbersome.
Upon dragging and dropping or scanning an asset (be it a picture, audio file, or scan), it should automatically embed within the note. In essence, the Obsidian vault should become a collection of self-contained notes, eliminating the need for a separate asset directory.
Envisage an Obsidian interface, underpinned by the TextBundle philosophy. The UI would stay exactly as it is, but a coding layer could simplify the embedding of assets, enhancing the vault’s organization and future-proofness.
- FolderNote - I place assets within folders, but this involves a lot of manual work. Also, it results in a mixed bag of markdown notes and folders, making things cluttered and hard to manage. In the screenshot below, notes with attachements are in red, those without are in blue.
- Bear App - I use a Python script to scan my vault, detect attachment errors, create a TextBundle backup, and import it to Bear for integrity checks. I am also waiting for Bear 2, which may better serve my needs.
The objective here is to introduce a feature that removes the need for such convoluted, inconsistent, or external workaround strategies.
- Scan Note and Move Attachments
- Attachment Folder Compatibility
- Delete/Move Note with Attachments
- Better Attachment Manager
- TextBundle Support
- Set Default Attachment Folder
Let’s boost Obsidian’s future-proof quality with this feature improvement for a more streamlined, efficient, and user-friendly experience.
I understand the problem your are facing but I disagree about the future proofing aspect.
What you are proposing is moving obsidian from working with markdown files directly to managing textbundles (essentially zipped markdown and attachments). This is going to make obsidian incompatible with all the other software that work on markdown files directly. We are not gonna do that.
I will merge this post with the textbundle support in plugin idea.
I value your feedback on my proposal @WhiteNoise, however, I believe there’s a need to rethink how Obsidian handles text and related assets.
My proposal, titled “Future-proofing Obsidian: Proposal for a TextBundle-oriented Asset Management”, focused not on TextBundles themselves, but the “TextBundle philosophy” - the view of a note as a mix of text and other assets.
Notes in Obsidian are often a blend of text and images, losing significant context without their assets. The markdown-only approach future-proofs the text but leaves the whole note (text + assets) vulnerable.
I must express my disappointment at the swift merging of my request with an unrelated topic. A feature request is a conversation starter, an inquiry: “Do others share this need?” It doesn’t call for immediate implementation.
Additionally, maintaining visibility of a feature request, even if initially perceived as irrelevant, fosters open dialogue without incurring costs or harm. Before removing a user’s contribution from the feature request section and relegating it to an unrelated “plugin idea”, initiating a discussion and seeking clarification could be a more respectful and productive approach.
Given this, I propose we refocus my original request on “future-proofing the link between assets and text”. This would allow developers to explore a range of solutions that address this core issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Unfortunately that is not how we use the feature request category. We fuzzily combine related ideas, even if they’re not the exact same, to capture and collect interest and use cases around given features.
Moreover, a move to Plugins ideas is not a relegation. Threads here are also eligible for future development.
This is the closest thing that can happen within the realm of markdown
I solve this currently by using folder notes:
- Set the default for attachments to “save in same folder”
- Use the Note Folder Auto Rename plugin to make a folder of any note to which I am attaching a copy of an external resource.
Thus attachments are kept local to the note that references them, and the entire folder can be moved, copied or renamed just like a single note, because the folder note keeps the same name as its enclosing folder.
It should be simple for a plugin to convert such a folder to or from a textbundle:
- folder/note name ↔ package name
- foldernote body ↔ text.*
- foldernote metatext ↔ info.json
Old post I’m replying to but just for clarity TextBundle is just a folder with some files underneath that on Mac shows up as a package. TextPack is just a zip file of that for compression.
TextBundles are not zip files. They’re folders/Mac packages with a text file, an info.json, and an assets folder for attachments. TextPack is a zipped version of the previous.
I am transitioning from Craft to Obsidian. Craft does provide export as text bundle… well the main problem I see in Obsidian is a standardized way to put “assets” so that they reside in directory that is not part of the “vault” in terms of showing up as a document. It would hold images or other non-text, non-markdown items that may be referenced by the markdown.
Craft uses a proprietary DB to hold all notes and assets, so its all hidden from us, we just see the notes.and put images in the note and it just works. When I exported it all to use in Obsidian it did manage to find the linked up images for my notes…but also the subfolder holding the images is exposed as part of the "vault’ as if it might have some md files inside. That makes for a lot of cluttered folders in my Obsidian few, in order to have a place to put the images.
Obsidian just needs a standard way to insert images and place them in an _assets folder or someplace that Obsidian will then not try to present as a potential folder with Md’s inside.
Not everyone works that way, so that would be an unacceptable restriction for some.
If you have a messy structure, you can feel free to open a Help thread, and people might have some suggestions for you to automatically clean it up with plugins or external tools in your OS.
Depending on the image link format you ended up with, you might be able to organize the images however you want without breaking any links. If you do open a Help thread, make sure to show some examples.