Re: [RFC] Document level property drawer

[Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>]

Gustav Wikström <gustav@whil.se> writes:

>> In Org, some keywords are special, like #+CATEGORY.  For many years,
>> such keywords have had file-wide effects regardless of their placement
>> in the file.  IIUC, your proposal would change that, and that would
>> still be a major, breaking change.
>
> This seems disingenuous.

To be disingenuous means, e.g.

    Not ingenuous; wanting in noble candor or frankness; not frank or
    open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.

It's not friendly to imply that of me over a difference of
interpretation of Org syntax and traditions.  I hope you meant something
else.  I wouldn't spend my time studying your proposals and offering
feedback if I didn't want what's best for Org and its users.

> In no way is this a major, breaking change.  No document you have
> today will break by the introduction of this.  The only thing changing
> is if you *actively* create a document level property drawer and
> choose to enter a property there that you already have defined in the
> same document, using a property keyword.

There is a bigger picture which you seem to be ignoring.

Org is distributed with Emacs itself.  Emacs versions are long-lived.
People use old Emacs and Org versions for years, because few people
build and install Emacs themselves, so most users use the versions
included with their OS or other distributions.

Your proposed change would introduce a major change in the way document
properties are interpreted.  This means that the same document, when
used on Emacs/Org versions before and after this change, would be
interpreted differently.  That's breaking forward-compatibility between
versions, ones which will be in the wild for years.  That decision
should not be taken lightly.

> Keywords that previously had file-wide effects will continue to have
> that. That's not removed. So you must have missunderstood something
> here.

I did not misunderstand; I am looking from a different perspective.  In
your proposal, line-based keywords can be overridden by document-level
property drawers, while they currently are applied to the entire file
regardless of any drawers.  That is a major change.

>> > If you think of the document as an outline, something Org mode is
>> > all about, it makes sense to also think of things before the first
>> > headline as "node level 0". And with that way of conceptually
>> > thinking of the document it makes perfect sense to have a property
>> > drawer fixed at the top - in the same way as it is required for all
>> > other node levels.
>> 
>> What you're proposing is actually a fundamental change to the way Org
>> documents are interpreted.  Org documents are not currently an
>> outline, just a series of elements which may include an outline.
>> Text and elements before a first heading are not part of a node,
>> they're just text and elements in the document.
>
> I don't agree here. What I'm proposing in this patch doesn't change
> the fundament of an Org mode document. I'd rather say it enhances the
> fundament! Since the outline to a large extent is the fundament! The
> following quote is from the documentation - Chapter 2, Document
> Structure:
>
>   #+begin_quote Org is an outliner.  Outlines allow a document to be
>   organized in a hierarchical structure, which, least for me, is the
>   best representation of notes and thoughts.  #+end_quote

Org is a collection of Emacs code built on top of Outline Mode, which
interprets plain-text files in a certain way.  Since the beginning, such
files have been interpreted such that content before the first heading
is not part of an outline node.  Your proposal would change that.  For
better or worse, it is a major change that has implications which you
seem to be unconcerned with.

> Thus, saying Org documents are not currently an outline again feels
> disingenuous and at this point I struggle to take your comments
> seriously.

As a fellow Org developer, I empathize with the work you have put into
your proposal and its code.  However, it would be best if you would
consider these issues impartially.

Like it or not, there is a wider "ecosystem" around Org today, and it is
growing.  Your proposal would have effects rippling downstream for years
to come, and other people would have to spend time making changes to
accommodate them.  Thus, the wider implications of your proposal should
be very carefully considered.

Org is a big, and growing, project with thousands of users.  We have a
duty to take these considerations into account, so major changes, like
your proposal, should be taken very seriously.