Wiki Support

Wiki Support

[Marc]

Hi,

I've seen that there is a generic export function 
(http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/org-export-generic.php) that can be used 
to export org-mode to wiki style.

If I got it right, this is not completly implemented (e.g. nested bullet lists 
are not supported).  Are there plans to complete the export function? IMHO, 
this is a really good feature that might save a lot of time.
Are there plans to do it vice versa, i.e. translate from wiki syntax to 
org-mode ?

BR
Marc

Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Wes Hardaker]

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:23:35 +0100, Marc <liste@barisch.com> said:

M> If I got it right, this is not completly implemented (e.g. nested
M> bullet lists are not supported).  Are there plans to complete the
M> export function? IMHO, this is a really good feature that might save
M> a lot of time.

I actually almost implemented bullet-parsing yesterday for
org-export-generic, but in the end I was swamped with other things to
do.

So yes, I'd like to see it done.  But no, it's not done currently...

M> Are there plans to do it vice versa, i.e. translate from wiki syntax
M> to org-mode ?

That'd certainly be helpful as well.  I don't know of anyone with plans
though (maybes someone else does)
-- 
Wes Hardaker                                     
My Pictures:  http://capturedonearth.com/
My Thoughts:  http://pontifications.hardakers.net/

Re: Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Adam Spiers]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 09:38:42AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:23:35 +0100, Marc <liste@barisch.com> said:
> 
> M> If I got it right, this is not completly implemented (e.g. nested
> M> bullet lists are not supported).  Are there plans to complete the
> M> export function? IMHO, this is a really good feature that might save
> M> a lot of time.
> 
> I actually almost implemented bullet-parsing yesterday for
> org-export-generic, but in the end I was swamped with other things to
> do.
> 
> So yes, I'd like to see it done.  But no, it's not done currently...
> 
> M> Are there plans to do it vice versa, i.e. translate from wiki syntax
> M> to org-mode ?
> 
> That'd certainly be helpful as well.  I don't know of anyone with plans
> though (maybes someone else does)

I would *love* to see auto-linking of WikiWords as a customisable
option.  I'm not sure if anyone's looked at supporting WikiWords yet.

Re: Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Carsten Dominik]

On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 09:38:42AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:23:35 +0100, Marc <liste@barisch.com>  
>>>>>>> said:
>>
>> M> If I got it right, this is not completly implemented (e.g. nested
>> M> bullet lists are not supported).  Are there plans to complete the
>> M> export function? IMHO, this is a really good feature that might  
>> save
>> M> a lot of time.
>>
>> I actually almost implemented bullet-parsing yesterday for
>> org-export-generic, but in the end I was swamped with other things to
>> do.
>>
>> So yes, I'd like to see it done.  But no, it's not done currently...
>>
>> M> Are there plans to do it vice versa, i.e. translate from wiki  
>> syntax
>> M> to org-mode ?
>>
>> That'd certainly be helpful as well.  I don't know of anyone with  
>> plans
>> though (maybes someone else does)
>
> I would *love* to see auto-linking of WikiWords as a customisable
> option.  I'm not sure if anyone's looked at supporting WikiWords yet.

Where should the link go?  To a file WikiWord.org?  Or doing an etags  
search?



>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

- Carsten

Re: Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Adam Spiers]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 01:15:59PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >I would *love* to see auto-linking of WikiWords as a customisable
> >option.  I'm not sure if anyone's looked at supporting WikiWords yet.
> 
> Where should the link go?  To a file WikiWord.org?  Or doing an
> etags search?

To a file WikiWord.org would cater for the majority of my needs.
Would be even cooler if you could specify a list of directories as a
search path, where each directory was either absolute or relative to
the current file!

Maybe others could make use of an etags option too; I'm not sure.  I
guess you might then need a custom function to translate the WikiWord
into a tag to lookup, since a lot of tags are not CamelCase.

Re: Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Carsten Dominik]

On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 01:15:59PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>> I would *love* to see auto-linking of WikiWords as a customisable
>>> option.  I'm not sure if anyone's looked at supporting WikiWords  
>>> yet.
>>
>> Where should the link go?  To a file WikiWord.org?  Or doing an
>> etags search?
>
> To a file WikiWord.org would cater for the majority of my needs.
> Would be even cooler if you could specify a list of directories as a
> search path, where each directory was either absolute or relative to
> the current file!
>
> Maybe others could make use of an etags option too; I'm not sure.  I
> guess you might then need a custom function to translate the WikiWord
> into a tag to lookup, since a lot of tags are not CamelCase.

I think it would be useful to discuss this proposal first in a broader  
sense.
Let me try to make a start.

A few days ago, Paul Sexton submitted his proposal for simple
file-to-file links based on etags.

He wanted to make [[sometext]] be a link to <<sometext>> where
the target definition <<sometext>> can be in a different file.
Furthermore, his proposal uses an external program to do the
indexing of the tags, and following the links uses the etags
code shipped with Emacs.

Finally, Paul's proposal also contains a way to automatically
create new topics when a link is called that does not yet have
a target.

Now we are talking about WikiWords, or CamelCase links.  Here the
idea is that any such mixed-case word automatically is treated as a  
link.
Traditionally these links to a separate file with name given by the
link text directly.  But I suppose it could also got to a <<target>>
somewhere in a file?

For a couple of reasons it seems to me that it would be useful
to look at these proposals together.  For one thing, I am not
a huge fan of the zillions of files that will be created when using
the one-file-per-word approach.  Since Org-mode is outline based, it
seem to make a lot of sense to have many topics per file.

One way to move into this direction would be to still use etags
to index the possible targets, and then to turn specific words
(like CamelCase words) directly into links without the need to
surround them with [[...]].

But of course, we could also have an implementation as Adam
proposes it, with CamelCase words linking to files, and
then [[target]] linking to targets.

Can we discuss this for a bit?

- Carsten

Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Paul Sexton]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik <at> gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
> 
> I think it would be useful to discuss this proposal first in a broader  
> sense.
> Let me try to make a start.
> 
> A few days ago, Paul Sexton submitted his proposal for simple
> file-to-file links based on etags.
> 
> He wanted to make [[sometext]] be a link to <<sometext>> where
> the target definition <<sometext>> can be in a different file.
> Furthermore, his proposal uses an external program to do the
> indexing of the tags, and following the links uses the etags
> code shipped with Emacs.
> 
> Finally, Paul's proposal also contains a way to automatically
> create new topics when a link is called that does not yet have
> a target.
> 
> Now we are talking about WikiWords, or CamelCase links.  Here the
> idea is that any such mixed-case word automatically is treated as a  
> link.
> Traditionally these links to a separate file with name given by the
> link text directly.  But I suppose it could also got to a <<target>>
> somewhere in a file?
> 
> For a couple of reasons it seems to me that it would be useful
> to look at these proposals together.  For one thing, I am not
> a huge fan of the zillions of files that will be created when using
> the one-file-per-word approach.  Since Org-mode is outline based, it
> seem to make a lot of sense to have many topics per file.
> 
> One way to move into this direction would be to still use etags
> to index the possible targets, and then to turn specific words
> (like CamelCase words) directly into links without the need to
> surround them with [[...]].
> 
> But of course, we could also have an implementation as Adam
> proposes it, with CamelCase words linking to files, and
> then [[target]] linking to targets.
> 
> Can we discuss this for a bit?
> 
> - Carsten


Hi Carsten,

In the other thread, you say you have implemented a hook whose function(s) are
run when attempting to open a link. From your description it sounds like the
hook is run FIRST, and org's default behaviour only happens if the hook
functions don't override it. 

However, both the link-to-file-of-same-name proposal and my etags functionality
would be more easily implemented with a hook function that is called only when
org can't find a specific target for [[plain link]]. At the moment org defaults
to performing a full-text search for "plain link". Both the wikiwords and the
etags behaviours need to happen instead of that default behaviour, but neither
needs to override the rest of org's link-opening behaviour. 

Re the WikiWords idea -- this could be done in 2 independent parts:
1. Option to tell org to interpret all CamelCase words as plain links (this
might be behaviour that some people want by itself)
2. Function, called when org can't find target for plain link, that tries to
open and visit a file with the same name as the link.

I think a hook to change the default behaviour of org when it can't find an
explicit target for a plain link is a very good idea and would probably lead to
other useful stuff. Personally I don't find the default behaviour of full-text
search to be useful.

Paul

P.S. My wishlist includes using a different colour to fontify links whose
targets don't exist (a la wikipedia with its undefined links in red). Can be
done, but not sure how to do it efficiently.

Re: Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Paul,

On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Paul Sexton wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik <at> gmail.com> writes:
> [snip]
>>
>> I think it would be useful to discuss this proposal first in a  
>> broader
>> sense.
>> Let me try to make a start.
>>
>> A few days ago, Paul Sexton submitted his proposal for simple
>> file-to-file links based on etags.
>>
>> He wanted to make [[sometext]] be a link to <<sometext>> where
>> the target definition <<sometext>> can be in a different file.
>> Furthermore, his proposal uses an external program to do the
>> indexing of the tags, and following the links uses the etags
>> code shipped with Emacs.
>>
>> Finally, Paul's proposal also contains a way to automatically
>> create new topics when a link is called that does not yet have
>> a target.
>>
>> Now we are talking about WikiWords, or CamelCase links.  Here the
>> idea is that any such mixed-case word automatically is treated as a
>> link.
>> Traditionally these links to a separate file with name given by the
>> link text directly.  But I suppose it could also got to a <<target>>
>> somewhere in a file?
>>
>> For a couple of reasons it seems to me that it would be useful
>> to look at these proposals together.  For one thing, I am not
>> a huge fan of the zillions of files that will be created when using
>> the one-file-per-word approach.  Since Org-mode is outline based, it
>> seem to make a lot of sense to have many topics per file.
>>
>> One way to move into this direction would be to still use etags
>> to index the possible targets, and then to turn specific words
>> (like CamelCase words) directly into links without the need to
>> surround them with [[...]].
>>
>> But of course, we could also have an implementation as Adam
>> proposes it, with CamelCase words linking to files, and
>> then [[target]] linking to targets.
>>
>> Can we discuss this for a bit?
>>
>> - Carsten
>
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> In the other thread, you say you have implemented a hook whose  
> function(s) are
> run when attempting to open a link. From your description it sounds  
> like the
> hook is run FIRST, and org's default behaviour only happens if the  
> hook
> functions don't override it.

That is correct, because the default behavior not only searches for  
<<target>>,
but also for plain text searches, and this may disrupt the workings of  
your code.
Since all targets in the current file should also be in your tags  
file, I think they will be fond without any problem in the current  
file as well.  So it is
early enough to fall back to full text search by the time your ctags  
search has *not* returned a successful match.  Or am I missing  
something here?

>
> However, both the link-to-file-of-same-name proposal and my etags  
> functionality
> would be more easily implemented with a hook function that is called  
> only when
> org can't find a specific target for [[plain link]]. At the moment  
> org defaults
> to performing a full-text search for "plain link". Both the  
> wikiwords and the
> etags behaviours need to happen instead of that default behaviour,  
> but neither
> needs to override the rest of org's link-opening behaviour.

Well, all the normal link stuff like http: links and file: links is  
still does before calling the hook!

>
> Re the WikiWords idea -- this could be done in 2 independent parts:
> 1. Option to tell org to interpret all CamelCase words as plain  
> links (this
> might be behaviour that some people want by itself)
> 2. Function, called when org can't find target for plain link, that  
> tries to
> open and visit a file with the same name as the link.
>
> I think a hook to change the default behaviour of org when it can't  
> find an
> explicit target for a plain link is a very good idea and would  
> probably lead to
> other useful stuff. Personally I don't find the default behaviour of  
> full-text
> search to be useful.

Exactly.  So why does your org-ctags still need a patch?  I am confused.

>
> Paul
>
> P.S. My wishlist includes using a different colour to fontify links  
> whose
> targets don't exist (a la wikipedia with its undefined links in  
> red). Can be
> done, but not sure how to do it efficiently.

Indeed, this would be relatively hard to do efficiently. - but not  
impossible.

- Carsten

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

- Carsten

Re: Re: OrgmodeWiki Support

[Darlan Cavalcante Moreira]

One of the main reasons that made me move from planner to org after using
planner mode for more than one year is exactly the "one file per day" approach
that is used by planner. Don't get me wrong, planner-mode is very good but I
think that the powerful outline capabilities of org-mode works better with my
brain than several files.

Today I use a remember template for notes that asks me for a title and puts the
note in a notes.org file. Maybe a good approach for camel case words for
org-mode could be similar to this.

Suppose that camel case support is active in org-mode and the user tries to
visit the link CamelCaseWord which does not exist yet. Org-mode could then
create a headline in a wiki.org file like this
,----
| * CamelCaseWord
| <<CamelCaseWord>>
`----
and visit that file.

This would allow the user to change the title if desired and the link would
still be valid even from other files (using the proposed etags functionality).

At last, in order to tell org-mode in which file (in this case wiki.org) and in
which section the new headlines should be created the user could define a
template similar to the remember templates (maybe it is even possible to use
remember-mode for this with the already available functionality).

- Darlan Cavalcante Moreira


At Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:59:22 +0100,
Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 01:15:59PM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >>> I would *love* to see auto-linking of WikiWords as a customisable
> >>> option.  I'm not sure if anyone's looked at supporting WikiWords  
> >>> yet.
> >>
> >> Where should the link go?  To a file WikiWord.org?  Or doing an
> >> etags search?
> >
> > To a file WikiWord.org would cater for the majority of my needs.
> > Would be even cooler if you could specify a list of directories as a
> > search path, where each directory was either absolute or relative to
> > the current file!
> >
> > Maybe others could make use of an etags option too; I'm not sure.  I
> > guess you might then need a custom function to translate the WikiWord
> > into a tag to lookup, since a lot of tags are not CamelCase.
> 
> I think it would be useful to discuss this proposal first in a broader  
> sense.
> Let me try to make a start.
> 
> A few days ago, Paul Sexton submitted his proposal for simple
> file-to-file links based on etags.
> 
> He wanted to make [[sometext]] be a link to <<sometext>> where
> the target definition <<sometext>> can be in a different file.
> Furthermore, his proposal uses an external program to do the
> indexing of the tags, and following the links uses the etags
> code shipped with Emacs.
> 
> Finally, Paul's proposal also contains a way to automatically
> create new topics when a link is called that does not yet have
> a target.
> 
> Now we are talking about WikiWords, or CamelCase links.  Here the
> idea is that any such mixed-case word automatically is treated as a  
> link.
> Traditionally these links to a separate file with name given by the
> link text directly.  But I suppose it could also got to a <<target>>
> somewhere in a file?
> 
> For a couple of reasons it seems to me that it would be useful
> to look at these proposals together.  For one thing, I am not
> a huge fan of the zillions of files that will be created when using
> the one-file-per-word approach.  Since Org-mode is outline based, it
> seem to make a lot of sense to have many topics per file.
> 
> One way to move into this direction would be to still use etags
> to index the possible targets, and then to turn specific words
> (like CamelCase words) directly into links without the need to
> surround them with [[...]].
> 
> But of course, we could also have an implementation as Adam
> proposes it, with CamelCase words linking to files, and
> then [[target]] linking to targets.
> 
> Can we discuss this for a bit?
> 
> - Carsten
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode