Re: Org-mode syntax as a tool-independent MIME type (was: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type)

[Timothy <orgmode@tec.tecosaur.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3853 bytes --]

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’t see the need for a split. If anything, it seems harmful to
me. What I’ve 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 least because:
⁃ It creates a 1-1 corespondency with the file extension, think about how
  markdown is often referred to as “MD” due to the .md file extension.
⁃ I also see other people naturally talking about “Org files” online, so this is
  partway to being a de-facto convention
⁃ I think it’s less confusing having “Org” be related with “org-mode” than
  “OrgDown” (or similar), and should people familiar with one 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 format
itself (like the org-syntax document). Done right this should be a boon to both
org-mode and Org outside Emacs.

> We should not think only of GNU Emacs because there is a
> rising number of tools that do support text files in Org-mode
> syntax[2] which is also a huge advantage for users of GNU Emacs:
> collaboration, public awareness of the syntax, more tool support,

I’m glad to hear we’re of a similar mind! I’ve long argued that this direction
is worthwhile even for people who only ever touch Org inside Emacs via. flow-on
effects.

> 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 of an
“Org” format under the org-mode project to keep everything under one umbrella,
as it were.

Regarding the EBNF, I’m not sure about that. I plan on talking/working more on
parsers later.

We already state on <https://orgmode.org> that: “The de facto mimetype for Org
files is text/org”.

> Let’s use that to establish a broad base for this great lightweight
> markup language syntax!

I have a rough plan which is slowly unfolding, along these lines:
⁃ Stabilise the Org format and syntax document (I’m currently here)
⁃ Reformate the Syntactic features of Org into a DAG[1]
⁃ Possibly also add some editing/export-y features as a DAG interleaved with the
  syntactic DAG[1]
⁃ Identify sensible subgraphs as sub-formats, and publish
⁃ Either enabling org-mode’s syntax tests
  (<https://git.sr.ht/~bzg/org-mode/tree/main/item/testing/lisp/test-org-element.el>)
  to be used with other parsers or building a language/test-framework
  independent set of tests.
⁃ A few other things



Footnotes
─────────

[1] See the attachments for a sample of what I’m talking about when I say
“syntactic DAG” etc.

All the best,
Timothy

-- 
Timothy (‘tecosaur’/‘TEC’), Org mode contributor.
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/tec>.

[-- Attachment #2: org-dag-sample-1.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 272762 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: org-dag-sample-2.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 102479 bytes --]