Hi Timothy, * Timothy <orgm...@tec.tecosaur.net> wrote: > --=-=-= > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Off topic: Something's quite off here with the encoding at least at my side (using slrn). I might be related to my setup, can't tell at the moment. > Hi Karl, > >> For reasons explained in my Orgdown-related articles[1] I would >> propose to use this chance to introduce a different term for the >> Org-mode lightweight markup language in contrast to the Org-mode >> Elisp implementation in order to push the syntax in a tool-agnostic >> way. > > Personally, I don=E2=80=99t see the need for a split. If anything, it seems= > harmful to > me. In my personal experience, people often seem to mix both things in discussions, causing unnecessary loops and conflicts. To me, a different name is very important. From the response related to OD, I might be in a minority here. If you want to push the format, you'd have to use "Org-mode syntax" or "Org-mode syntax file" or similar. People who are aware of the difference to the implementation mostly do not use words that differ here. So in my opinion, a slightly different term would help. It's not a dramatic difference, it's more subtle for most people. > What I=E2=80=99ve taken to doing is referring to org-mode files outside= > Emacs simply > as Org files, and I think this works well for a number of reasons, not leas= > t because: > =E2=81=83 It creates a 1-1 corespondency with the file extension, think abo= > ut how > markdown is often referred to as =E2=80=9CMD=E2=80=9D due to the .md file= > extension. > =E2=81=83 I also see other people naturally talking about =E2=80=9COrg file= > s=E2=80=9D online, so this is > partway to being a de-facto convention You're right. I do think that this is mostly because of lack of an alternative. > =E2=81=83 I think it=E2=80=99s less confusing having =E2=80=9COrg=E2=80=9D = > be related with =E2=80=9Corg-mode=E2=80=9D than > =E2=80=9COrgDown=E2=80=9D (or similar), and should people familiar with o= > ne come across > mention of the other it should thus reduce the chance of confusion. > > What I do see the need for is the development of more resources on the form= > at > itself (like the org-syntax document). Done right this should be a boon to = > both > org-mode and Org outside Emacs. Absolutely. >> I proposed the term Orgdown for the Org-mode syntax and also >> proposed various levels in order to provide sub-sets of Org-mode >> syntax[3] that are realistic to implement with finite effort. Using >> those OD-levels to come up with a formal definition (EBNF?) might >> play perfectly well with different parameters of the MIME type[4]. >> >> In my opinion, this would be a huge step forward for the whole >> ecosystem that supports the same Org-mode syntax. >> >> If we do not keep the MIME type independent from the GNU Emacs >> Org-mode implementation, the overall use would be much smaller in >> the long run. > > I find myself holding a contrary position, that we should keep the notion o= > f an > =E2=80=9COrg=E2=80=9D format under the org-mode project to keep everything = > under one umbrella, > as it were. I donĀ“t think that this is a contrary position. OD is supposed to be a 100% sub-set of Org-mode syntax as implemented in Elisp. -- get mail|git|SVN|photos|postings|SMS|phonecalls|RSS|CSV|XML into Org-mode: > get Memacs from https://github.com/novoid/Memacs < Personal Information Management > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/pim/ Emacs-related > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/emacs/