Dear Ihor, I will consider your points and take them into account.
On 2024-03-24 14:40 Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote: > If it is an option, it would be nice if you upstreamed your additions > to orgparse. This way, we can get a better Python-based Org parser for > everyone's benefit. The code is free. The orgparse maintainer is free to re-use it of course. On the other hand in the long run I will consider to separate my parsing code into an extra package. But currently it is to unstable and do support only a small subset of all org(roam) features. > > Orgparse do throw exceptions e.g. UnicodeDecodeError or when > > timestamps are invalid. Hyperorg catch that exceptions and go on > > with the next node without interrupting the whole process. > > I see. FYI, it is a bug to throw an error when parsing Org document. > Any kind of text file is a valid Org document. There is no notion of > invalid syntax in Org markup. You mean throw an error is a bug because it is not possible to write invalid org documents? I am not convinced yet. But I am open to it and willing to learn. Even org-html-export* itself do throw errors and stop processing when there are unknown orgids. What is about an inconsistent block? #begin_src foobar #end_example > > Other things are "invalid" links, e.g. unknown orgids, unknown roam > > links, unsupported "link kinds" ("protocols" in org syntax?; e.g. > > "inkscape:"). > > In Org terminology, we call these "broken" links. > "link kinds" are link "types". The term "types" is to broad and conflicts with Pythons in build functions. ;) That is the main reason why I used "kind". On the other hand the org syntax reference IMHO also use the term "protocol". > Do you mean that orgparse throws an error when encountering tables? No. I was referring to Hyperorg. OrgParse do not parse any org content except headings and properties. Nearly everything else is unparsed and given raw to my. > Generally, part of the "Benefits" section is a bit hand-wavy. I > recommend using more clear statements. Otherwise, it is not clear what > exactly the benefits are. Again. It is also not "clear" for me. There are benefits just for myself as an low-level-Emacs-and-org-user, someone who get headaches reading Lisp code and feeling very comfortable using Python. In short: My opinion is very subjective. And I don't have enough experience to compare my tool to others. I tried to make this point clear in my benefits section. And this is also the reason why there was no benefits section in the first place because I wasn't clear enough about what to write in there. Maybe I should rephrase the section to "Benefits and design goals". > 1. Drop "Fairly resilient when dealing with parser issues." Why? The "design goal" is to process all nodes no matter how bad/invalid they are. > 2. Reword "Fairly resilient managing dead and problematic links which > are a common phenomenon when working with a constantly evolving > Zettelkasten or personal wiki." And instead clearly explain how broken > links are exported. I don't want to blow up the text. Not sure what you expect here. The node is exported as HTML but the link is colorful highlighted and a tooltip explaining the problem is added. > 4. Drop "Adhers to World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards for HTML5 > and CSS (<!DOCTYPE html>)." Most other blog exporters for Org mode > adhere to standards. And those that are not are probably out of > interest for the purposes of comparison. Why? Btw: Even code generated by org-html-export* (XHTML 1.0 Strict) give errors on W3C. e.g. "type" attribute is missing in <style> tag. > 5. Maybe mention the "tag cloud" visible in the example screenshot > (btw, the screenshot is not very sexy; compare it with something like > https://one.tonyaldon.com/). There nothing fancy as a "tag cloud". ;) btw: There is no cloud on the link you provided. About the "sexy"ness of Hyperorg output: There is a specific label for that issues: <https://codeberg.org/buhtz/hyperorg/issues?labels=180551> But as you can see on the "milestone" the priority is low. Thanks for your effort and your discussion. I learn a lot. Kind Christian Buhtz