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

[Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at>]

Hi Timothy,

* Timothy <orgmode@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 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/