01.09.2020 23:39, TEC wrote:
Maxim Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes:
Installation page
I am uncertain if it is applicable for other editors, but I would
like to see name of vim plugin since ambiguity (or matter of taste)
exists.. FAQ suggests other vim plugins. I do not remember if I saw
vim-outliner somewhere on orgmode.org. I have not tried any of
these plugins.
Each entry is a link to the extension/plugin in question, is this not
sufficient?
I think that in respect to vim it is more complicated, so
"Vim: see
[[https://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#org-outlines-in-vim][FAQ]]";
may be more appropriate. However FAQ entry should be updated. Certainly
jceb/vim-ormode should be added. On the other hand I do not consider
vim-orgmode as the absolute winner. VimOrganizer is not actively
maintained but it supports table alignment. Unfortunately internal links
require a fix. Recent https://github.com/axvr/org.vim ,
https://www.reddit.com/r/orgmode/comments/fbewla/orgvim_a_very_minimal_org_mode_and_outline_mode/
is very simple in comparison to projects mentioned above, but header
folding and syntax highlighting work well. In FAQ it should be mentioned
in addition to older http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1266 .
I suppose, the choice depends on features the user is looking for. E.g.
if neither agenda nor even syntax compatibility with org mode is
required, any folding syntax rules with Utl.vim (universal text links)
could be a viable alternative for a note-taking application with some
spirit of org. It seems, it is difference of expectation that causes
proliferation of plugins and bring lists like
https://vim.fandom.com/wiki/Script:List_of_scripts_for_outlining
That is why I found the link that just looks as "vim" rather obscure and
confusing. Even "vim: vim-orgmode plugin" item is better since a name of
particular plugin is visible without additional actions as following the
link or hovering it with mouse (if it is available). Explicitly
presented name allows to recall it later.
If you decide to update FAQ (maybe it is better to discuss it in a
dedicated thread), please, do not wipe "obsolete" links completely. Some
phrase "previously we recommended ..." could add a value for those who
read the old variant and is trying to figure out where they saw such
suggestion.
