Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: > David Masterson <dsmasterson92...@outlook.com> writes:
>> But having undefined behaviors is limiting on the portability of Org >> because people are unwilling to pick it up and attempt to (say) create a >> (partial) Org for other platforms (iPhone, Android, etc.). > This is very much a secondary consideration. While making it as easy as > possible to parse org files outside of Emacs is not a bad thing, it > should not be a primary driver for how org works. Org is an emacs mode > and I think we need to be careful when considering limiting what you can > do with it based on how easily it can be formally specified for external > tools to use. I think few org users would welcome a change which removed > a feature or required them to modify their workflow just to support the > development of non-emacs tools. Could it be done via a secondary parser? That is, define a base level language for Org that fits into a BNF (or..?) grammar and then a package that could be a pre-hook to the parser that rewrites improper tidbits into a grammatically correct form? I'm thinking, if the grammar is well defined, the secondary parser won't be that complex. -- David Masterson
