Hi Leo, Leo Vivier <za...@zaeph.net> writes:
> Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > >> As the first paragraph says: >> >> "This document describes and comments Org syntax as it is currently >> read by its parser (Org Elements)" >> >> while we need a description of Org's syntax from the point of view of >> (1) a human writer and (2) any possible Org parser. > > I agree that (1) and (2) should be two different documents. Sorry, perhaps I was not clear: (1) and (2) do not need to be separate documents. I think both can be described in a single document, my main point was that the current org-syntax.org is from none of these points of view. > (2) would > be especially interesting since there are quite a few projects afoot to > parse Org documents outside of Emacs: > - go-org (Go) > https://github.com/niklasfasching/go-org > - orgize (Rust) > https://docs.rs/orgize/0.8.4/orgize/ > > They are in various stages of advancement, but a design document would > go a long way in federating those efforts. > >> I don't know how difficult it is, but I suspect it is quite a lot of >> work. > > I assume that it would be, yes. However, as someone with a vested > interest in developing an efficient external parser for Org documents, > I’d love to contribute. I’ve been playing around lately with ox.el to > write an exporter to Jupyter (more on that soon), and since it makes > extensive use of org-element.el, I’d have a modicum of knowledge upon > which I could initiate the effort. Great, thanks for volunteering. I think this is something you should perhaps do with a long time Org user, ping-pong'ing with commits, not alone. Nicolas, what's your take on this? Would it be okay for you if we rename worg/dev/org-syntax.org to something like worg/dev/org-elements-syntax.org or would that be confusing? Would you have any advice on how to tackle worg/org-syntax.org in a generic and useful way? -- Bastien