Re: [O] org reserved and special words in drawers
Bastien writes: > > I would first ask myself "what is the new org format for? > Is it worth implementing this?" > > Best, My motivation is to have an ability to create a virtual org file. My workflow involves sharing bits and pieces of plain text with non-org users and, right now, this means hacking and slashing org files to remove org guff, putting org guff back in to edited plain text, or trying to resolve diffs between org and non-org plain text files. So a plain text file that has org-mode metadata rather than integrated org guff has a lot of appeal. I could send out the plain text, receive edits and the metadata would preserve the org state.
Re: [O] org reserved and special words in drawers
Hi Tony, Tony Day writes: > I'm trying to get my head around what a 'readable exchange format' is. > > org-export.el already exports as an elisp list: > > M-: (setq my-org-buffer-as-elisp (org-element-parse-buffer)) RTE > > ... and it's pretty readable :-) > > So the basic idea is that you would export from an org file to an org > file but one with a /different/ and maybe standardized format (highly > standardized is the oref gist?). > > For example, anything that > is content passes through as text and everything else (org guff) is put > into a :PROPERTIES: :END: wrapper? Yes, why not. If people need an exchange format that is based on .org files but slightly different, org-export.el can certainly help. >> Maybe you can start working on a org-e-oref exporter, storying *all* >> metadata into properties? ... Don't know where it will lead, but who >> knows? > > A mission truly beyond my abilities, but how could I say no to such a > meta org-mode process :-) > > Is the right place to start basically turning (org-element-parse-buffer) > output back into an org buffer? I'd say so, but Nicolas might help more here. > Is this best thought of as another backend? I > can't quite see why org-e-oref.el and not just org-e-org.el? I would first ask myself "what is the new org format for? Is it worth implementing this?" Best, -- Bastien
Re: [O] org reserved and special words in drawers
> Bastien writes: >> In other words, we could then /apply/ org-mode >> on a document rather than transforming a document into an org >> document. > What we may think about is a "Org readable exchange format (oref?)", > which would take the output of Nicolas' parser, export it in Org-mode > using some specific properties like "TAGS:" "TODO:" etc. I'm trying to get my head around what a 'readable exchange format' is. org-export.el already exports as an elisp list: M-: (setq my-org-buffer-as-elisp (org-element-parse-buffer)) RTE ... and it's pretty readable :-) So the basic idea is that you would export from an org file to an org file but one with a /different/ and maybe standardized format (highly standardized is the oref gist?). For example, anything that is content passes through as text and everything else (org guff) is put into a :PROPERTIES: :END: wrapper? > > > Maybe you can start working on a org-e-oref exporter, storying *all* > metadata into properties? ... Don't know where it will lead, but who > knows? A mission truly beyond my abilities, but how could I say no to such a meta org-mode process :-) Is the right place to start basically turning (org-element-parse-buffer) output back into an org buffer? Is this best thought of as another backend? I can't quite see why org-e-oref.el and not just org-e-org.el?
Re: [O] org reserved and special words in drawers
Hi Tony, tony day writes: > I've been thinking about a patch for org-mode that would give an > option to place various org concepts in a drawer rather than > automatically in the body of the document. The overall idea is that > for some use cases, it makes sense to disturb the underlying content > as little as possible. In other words, we could then /apply/ org-mode > on a document rather than transforming a document into an org > document. > > Is this doable or is it a crazy amount of work for little benefit? What is doable is to try to enhance Org so that less stuff come in the way, sure. What we may think about is a "Org readable exchange format (oref?)", which would take the output of Nicolas' parser, export it in Org-mode using some specific properties like "TAGS:" "TODO:" etc. > The org concepts I've penciled in are: > > ** tags > > What might be the best scheme for defining tags as properties rather > than in headlines? See above. > ** scheduled, closed, deadline > > It should be possible to put these in drawers. There is a plan for this, yes. > ** =todo= > > Can we put =todo= keywords in drawers but still easily use all the > org-mode technology surrounding them? See above. > ** item > > Would it be at all possible to define an item without actually adding > a header? One solution that comes to mind is to define an item (or a > subtree in other words) as all content until the next properties drawer. > > Is there anything else missing from this list? Maybe you can start working on a org-e-oref exporter, storying *all* metadata into properties? ... Don't know where it will lead, but who knows? -- Bastien
[O] org reserved and special words in drawers
Hi, I've been thinking about a patch for org-mode that would give an option to place various org concepts in a drawer rather than automatically in the body of the document. The overall idea is that for some use cases, it makes sense to disturb the underlying content as little as possible. In other words, we could then /apply/ org-mode on a document rather than transforming a document into an org document. Is this doable or is it a crazy amount of work for little benefit? The org concepts I've penciled in are: ** tags What might be the best scheme for defining tags as properties rather than in headlines? ** scheduled, closed, deadline It should be possible to put these in drawers. ** =todo= Can we put =todo= keywords in drawers but still easily use all the org-mode technology surrounding them? ** item Would it be at all possible to define an item without actually adding a header? One solution that comes to mind is to define an item (or a subtree in other words) as all content until the next properties drawer. Is there anything else missing from this list? Tony
