Juan Manuel Macías writes: > Joost Kremers writes: > >> Why not just use the term "Org markup"? It's descriptive and should be >> understandable to people familiar with the concept of markup languages. > > This. 'Org markup language' and 'Org Syntax' are obvious and natural > terms that can easily be inferred from the Org manual. Honestly I don't > see much point in coming up with new names for a concept which is > already transparent and self-explanatory. It is something I find > unnecessary and baroque. Org markup and Org syntax sound good, I think. I’m unsure which is better to convey that this includes features — that org-mode is much more than just a way to encode some information, but a way to interact with documents and an implementation of the syntax should keep that in mind. One thing that is important to keep: Org Syntax or Org Markup is implementation-defined. You cannot claim *full compatibility*, if you are not fully compatible with org-mode. This includes a lot of Emacs features, like linking to arbitrary files/buffers/things, extending links, and so on. The minimal syntax (missing a lot of features) would be outline markup or outline syntax (from outline-mode, the ancestor of org-mode). Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de