From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 8Cy6MjTspmEnOwEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 04:29:56 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id EMlILjTspmGMRwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:29:56 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13C79367D8 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 04:29:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51662 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msGJf-0003q2-5o for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 22:29:55 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53192) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msGIn-0003pd-Jz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 22:29:01 -0500 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:47849) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msGIl-0006TD-7b for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 22:29:01 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0801240101 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 04:28:56 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1638329336; bh=sd3mnZuSft6gmXEkloXvrPQItzrfiFeroKQNN6V1zrM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=TI917J3XQV+4lU3PMkWf7/HZGhdQvHK7+MCw7X5gCc8hFOpnemMmirnniPGQwxs/F moJqXM7qVPBPuxAaikkGcrG+EL+nGmLKXoKQMxde3ud2Q8Q3VFGDb4XSA+z8d+NY7U LK6CWM1WoKzpuXWXuRqDQ4J7/9y4dOlJTaCcqGZPGrWGDXKOeXNUFvvP3rFMiv4DDP nwhbStpgIECOTFimUg+B8YrV4v+MkGDwNf6f2TMl3LzDmKhoxYVd43GdM99Nxv6hk2 JywDPcNCkILyHKA5WmRlD83q4YwY9gU0/Uet8QO2GHgwUZ4azWE+AHfIqS/T8ylSwM EOAtFgNVIv34w== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4J3l1M6qYJz9rxF; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 04:28:55 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Juan_Manuel_Mac=C3=ADas?= To: Tom Gillespie Subject: Re: Orgdown: negative feedback & attempt of a root-cause analysis References: <2021-11-28T20-44-37@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <875ysb7v1r.fsf@gmail.com> <2021-11-29T14-12-55@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> <87tufuu8ah.fsf@atlantis> <2021-11-30T21-02-53@devnull.Karl-Voit.at> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 03:28:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Gillespie's message of "Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:41:30 -0800") Message-ID: <87o861hukq.fsf@posteo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=maciaschain@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: orgmode Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1638329396; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=pywaashdjcb12DQL9tZmrFRHtXq5MMrbwr4+TX3gdgY=; b=Ds+pWkBORlYVsUz/y9/vUXeeXWDu3QFjjnFH9tONhxPsH4NiOAJbgbMWdLTWmN5cuyNGB6 7KF6i/BLOoZoyStTLaIzCjQeAicS2Ud8ddxFp2DGD43MXJfFqNLnF93AId4U8d58EDGGAP EYBu19F8O38Z9bm07SnqdqlENJnntfHEjQUa0NaQY+7ccQGjfy5C064K5aUljkuy6DiEDd zU7tZiBc1FOeQBLjkuufG4BFjzLoEhmOypjIf0OMb9laTgmed+sWaTcPhlimeSLyDfbDQ9 hCroRw1G3fDX3tNUPuuXZAkC4hc+BmyaB2c29ThWozzpn/WTpeaSc2LRbc8nog== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1638329396; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=AjSgg85gmhilQDImoxlwS0e4rIonHcvYmXdIxGziwv+qEl23ZrTiJ9ItrjAnL/sATVwSMT Is+Oo76mk+r0O8zab98Jrb+vielFDiGPuYYf4KRaUiCoKXcSp1K1AoK5QNGCTWG0oQLNA/ nG3CFpVJRlNwIdTx26yGQIoqT5r80gOVWy19ESLytC7tdqLrfnnLV0q+gyD/iA/uIYABDY TJkmE9Adl78Ul8wB5qd5c8D0e5ylUYEVMHyFIDVOX+l9zYXjmfC3+mxKdVrdjTddSVTJI8 wwkzm8g3gze0cnTgCE9sG4eC0sN661tz55ks90fd2BXyxAJjMhlHfOmDWt0jgA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=TI917J3X; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.31 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=TI917J3X; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 13C79367D8 X-Spam-Score: -4.31 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: y/8oe2P44jhh Tom Gillespie writes: > Karl, > The exact naming of a thing is nearly always the most contentious > step in trying to promulgate it. In my own field we can easily get all > parties to agree on a definition, but they refuse to budge on a name. > As others have said, I wouldn't worry about kibitizing over the name. > > I would however worry about the larger negative reaction. From my > perspective I think the issue is that there are many efforts working > toward a formalized specification for Org syntax and Org mode > functionality, and some of those stakeholders who have invested > significant effort may feel blindsided by a public declaration > announcing Orgdown because they were not consulted and not > made aware that you were working on it. > > I appreciate the amount of work that you have put in, I have devoted > hundreds of hours to working on an alternate implementation of org > in Racket that uses a formal ebfn in hopes that others will be able > to use it as a guide and as a way to talk formally about how Org > parsers and implementations should behave. > > It would thus be easy for me to say that your approach has put the > cart before the horse, because there are countless nuances in the > specification for Org syntax which must be addressed before any > levels of org compliance can be specified, otherwise the behavior > between levels will be inconsistent. > > If I were to say this, it would not be fair to you at all. The ideas > and motivation for Orgdown are vital and important. You have put > in enormous thought and effort, all because you care about Org > and want to see it succeed. > > The issue is that any shared specification for Org syntax is > fundamentally about how to coordinate as a community. > The way that Orgdown was presented to the community feels > (to me) like it is being imposed top down or coming from an > individual source, not from an open and visible community > process (the subject of your original email reads as a declaration > in english, and thus can be quite off putting, though I know that > was not the intention). > > I personally haven't bothered with promulgation because I think > that we are not technically ready as a community to approach > outreach to other developers in a way that we can succeed. > > The good news is that all of this can co-exist if we want it to, > but we need to be clear about our objectives as a community. > > To me these objectives are as follows (and I would love > to hear from others about additional or alternate objectives). > > 1. To never fracture Org syntax so as to avoid the nightmare > of markdown flavors. (This means being able to say clearly > as a community that a parser is out of compliance and that > it is up to the user to fix their files. The ruby org parser used > by Github is a major issue here.) > 2. To provide a clear specification for what graceful degradation > looks like when parsing Org syntax if a parser does not support > some portion of that syntax (e.g. should property drawer lines > be excluded or rendered as plain text?). > 3. Provide a solid basis on which further formal specification > can be built. (My interests in particular are around providing > consistent semantics for org-babel blocks across languages > so that babel implementations can clearly communicate what > runtime features they support.) > > The approach for Orgdown can absolutely meet all three of > these objectives, however in its current form Orgdown1 is not > sufficiently well specified to avoid fracturing the syntax. > This is because Org syntax is extremely complex (even the > elisp implementation of Org mode is internally inconsistent) > and there are edge cases where behavior will diverge if parsing > of even the simplest elements is not fully specified. > > There are many ways to remedy this, however they require > a more formal approach. A number of us are working to build > technical foundations for such a formal approach, but I do not > think that any of those projects are ready to be used to > specify discrete levels of Org syntax parsing compliance. > > If I may, I would suggest that an Orgdown0 is something that > could be well specified, but it would avoid parsing of markup > altogether and only deal with the major element types. Parsing > paragraphs and all the org objects is not something that can > be done piecemeal. There are too many interactions between > different parts of the syntax, and in some cases the existing > specification desperately needs to be revisited due to the > complexity that it induces or because it is underspecified. > Of course this would make Orgdown0 fairly useless as a > replacement for markdown, but at least it would be a start. Everything you comment here seems very sensible to me. Anyway I have to say that, in my case, the name 'orgdown' is not the issue, but the underlying idea under the naming, whatever the name is. IMHO, reduce Org to a markup language or, to put it somewhat metaphorically, distill Org into a workable markup language outside Org itself and GNU Emacs, is a task that seems impossible to me. Or at least (for not being so radical), quite difficult. And, on the other hand, what would be the point of doing that? I think Org and Markdown are the antipodes, they are like water and oil, although they share certain purposes. Just to make my current opinion clear. Best regards, Juan Manuel