Re: Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type (was: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type)

[Ihor Radchenko]

Karl Voit  writes:

> 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. We should not think only of GNU Emacs because there is a
> rising number of tools that do support text files in Org-mode
> syntax[2] which is also a huge advantage for users of GNU Emacs:
> collaboration, public awareness of the syntax, more tool support,
> ...

I do not like the idea of using Orgdown term for MIME type.
MIME type already imply syntax, not the implementation. I think that it
will be better to keep "Org" term for MIME type and avoid too much
confusion.

The Emacs-independent description of the syntax is being worked on in
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html.

> 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].

I do understand and accept your idea about simplified syntax
description. As we are going to need the syntax white-paper for MIME
type registration anyway, we may as well define your syntax levels in
that document. I envision a section in
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html that will define subsets
syntax elements can be supported.

The first step now if finalizing
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html. It would help if other Org
users read through the document and try to spot what is missing,
unclear, or inaccurate.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

Re: Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type

[Ihor Radchenko]

Karl Voit  writes:

> I tried to collect projects on
> https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org

Would you be interested to contribute to https://orgmode.org/tools.html?

>> Perhaps TEC is right and we will end up having the minimal syntax
>> being the one we currently use for Org-mode: we'll see.
>>
>> But we need volunteers: one to work on worg/dev/org-synxtax.org (I'm
>> assuming TEC can lead the work here) and one to set up a discussion
>> with people implementing Org in various places (you ?).
>
> What kind of discussion is on your mind? At the moment, I tend to
> think that the Org-mode community should provide directions by
> developing a formal definition of the syntax and maybe later-on
> define viable sub-sets (the OD levels?) so that tool developers
> don't have to implement the whole large thing.
>
> At this stage, I don't know what discussions you're trying to start
> here. Can you elaborate?

You can start from reading https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html
and providing suggestions to improve it. That document will eventually
become the syntax reference.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

Re: Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type

[Karl Voit]

Hi Bastien,

* Bastien  wrote:
> Hi Karl and Timothy,
>
> thank you Karl for reviving this important topic.
>
> I think our collective priority should be to work on
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-synxtax.html so that it reflects the
> current Org syntax.  Hopefully we can do this before Org 9.6.  As
> discussed with TEC, we can factor out suggestions from this document
> so that it is not a mix of facts and hypotheses.

A valid approach.

I think we do have two different approaches ongoing here. With OD1 I
tried to come up with a minimal set of Org-mode syntax elements that
are very easy to implement in non-Emacs tools in order to get an
easy intro to this universe. This is a bottom-up approach.

Defining the whole Org-mode syntax as you've suggested is a complete
definition of Orgdown (or OD∞ as of
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Orgdown-Levels.org
) which is a top-down approach.

So far, I don´t see a conflict here. This may arise with OD2, OD3,
... definitions if they will ever exist.

> Then we can work on suggestions for evolutions of the current Org-mode
> syntax chunk by chunk, as a long-term goal for stabilizing changes for
> Org 10 (2023 ?)

Sounds great!

> What occurred to me while rereading this thread is that definining a
> syntax for a IETF RFC on an Org mimetype probably needs to be done not
> just by this Emacs Org-mode community, but by bringing together other
> "consumers" of .org files, from ecosystems outside of Emacs.
>
> Such a collective work could lead to define what subset of the Org
> syntax is useful as the corner-stone for .org files everywhere - which
> is what you rightfully brought up with "Orgdown".

I tried to collect projects on
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org

> If successful, such a process could end up in defining the minimal and
> official "Org syntax" while allowing implementations (like the one for
> Emacs org-mode) to supercharge this syntax if deemed useful.

To me, this sound aligned with the idea of OD levels OD1 and OD∞.

> Perhaps TEC is right and we will end up having the minimal syntax
> being the one we currently use for Org-mode: we'll see.
>
> But we need volunteers: one to work on worg/dev/org-synxtax.org (I'm
> assuming TEC can lead the work here) and one to set up a discussion
> with people implementing Org in various places (you ?).

What kind of discussion is on your mind? At the moment, I tend to
think that the Org-mode community should provide directions by
developing a formal definition of the syntax and maybe later-on
define viable sub-sets (the OD levels?) so that tool developers
don't have to implement the whole large thing.

At this stage, I don't know what discussions you're trying to start
here. Can you elaborate?

> I suggest to take this sequentially and not tackle the second work
> before we're done with the first one.

I interpret this as "discussions with tool developers after working
on the formal Org definition". This would be my understanding and
also my thought.

-- 
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/

Re: Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type

[Karl Voit]

Hi Timothy,

* Timothy  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 don´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/

Re: Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi Karl and Timothy,

thank you Karl for reviving this important topic.

I think our collective priority should be to work on
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-synxtax.html so that it reflects the
current Org syntax.  Hopefully we can do this before Org 9.6.  As
discussed with TEC, we can factor out suggestions from this document
so that it is not a mix of facts and hypotheses.

Then we can work on suggestions for evolutions of the current Org-mode
syntax chunk by chunk, as a long-term goal for stabilizing changes for
Org 10 (2023 ?)

What occurred to me while rereading this thread is that definining a
syntax for a IETF RFC on an Org mimetype probably needs to be done not
just by this Emacs Org-mode community, but by bringing together other
"consumers" of .org files, from ecosystems outside of Emacs.

Such a collective work could lead to define what subset of the Org
syntax is useful as the corner-stone for .org files everywhere - which
is what you rightfully brought up with "Orgdown".

If successful, such a process could end up in defining the minimal and
official "Org syntax" while allowing implementations (like the one for
Emacs org-mode) to supercharge this syntax if deemed useful.

Perhaps TEC is right and we will end up having the minimal syntax
being the one we currently use for Org-mode: we'll see.

But we need volunteers: one to work on worg/dev/org-synxtax.org (I'm
assuming TEC can lead the work here) and one to set up a discussion
with people implementing Org in various places (you ?).

I suggest to take this sequentially and not tackle the second work
before we're done with the first one.

2 cts,

-- 
 Bastien

Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type (was: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type)

[Karl Voit]

Hi,

* TEC  wrote:
>
> I'm still hoping for that discussion :P
>
> To the Org community, if you have thoughts on this - please share them
> :)

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. We should not think only of GNU Emacs because there is a
rising number of tools that do support text files in Org-mode
syntax[2] which is also a huge advantage for users of GNU Emacs:
collaboration, public awareness of the syntax, more tool support,
...

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.

Let's use that to establish a broad base for this great lightweight
markup language syntax!


[1] 
https://karl-voit.at/2021/11/27/orgdown/
https://emacsconf.org/2021/talks/org-outside/
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown
https://karl-voit.at/2021/12/02/Orgdown-feedback/

[2]
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org

[3]
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Orgdown-Levels.org

[4] https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/issues/8

-- 
Personal Information Management > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/pim/
Emacs-related > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/emacs/