Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

Hi everyone,

Prompted by the fact that Markdown is registered as a MIME type
(RFC7763) and perusing the MIME registration procedure (RFC6838),
I wonder if it may be possible to register Org as a MIME type?

There are a few parts of RFC6838 in particular which give me hope, 
such
as:
> [§4.9] universal support and implementation of a media type are 
> NOT a
> requirement for registration.

I'm guessing the main barrier wold be a the lack of a published
specification --- I'm guessing a complete version of
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html published under the 
main
site (i.e. https://orgmode.org/standard.html) would be required.

Looking for other uses of the .org extension, there doesn't seem 
to be
much. The main result is from "Lotus Organiser", which seems to be 
a
(discontinued) PIM from IBM which used .org as its file type in 
the 1992
release. Other than that it seems that Yamaha and SoundBlaster 
have used
it as an extension for organ audio samples.

If it does seem possible to have text/org formally added as a mime 
type,
I would love to push this.

Please let me know what you think.

All the best,

Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Gustav Wikström]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1528 bytes --]

That would be very nice indeed.

/Gustav
________________________________
From: Emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode-bounces+gustav=whil.se@gnu.org> on behalf of TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 4:44:50 PM
To: org-mode-email <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type


Hi everyone,

Prompted by the fact that Markdown is registered as a MIME type
(RFC7763) and perusing the MIME registration procedure (RFC6838),
I wonder if it may be possible to register Org as a MIME type?

There are a few parts of RFC6838 in particular which give me hope,
such
as:
> [§4.9] universal support and implementation of a media type are
> NOT a
> requirement for registration.

I'm guessing the main barrier wold be a the lack of a published
specification --- I'm guessing a complete version of
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html published under the
main
site (i.e. https://orgmode.org/standard.html) would be required.

Looking for other uses of the .org extension, there doesn't seem
to be
much. The main result is from "Lotus Organiser", which seems to be
a
(discontinued) PIM from IBM which used .org as its file type in
the 1992
release. Other than that it seems that Yamaha and SoundBlaster
have used
it as an extension for organ audio samples.

If it does seem possible to have text/org formally added as a mime
type,
I would love to push this.

Please let me know what you think.

All the best,

Timothy.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2613 bytes --]

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[stardiviner]

I would like to see this result too. Great to know this :)

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Prompted by the fact that Markdown is registered as a MIME type
> (RFC7763) and perusing the MIME registration procedure (RFC6838),
> I wonder if it may be possible to register Org as a MIME type?
>
> There are a few parts of RFC6838 in particular which give me hope, 
> such
> as:
>> [§4.9] universal support and implementation of a media type are 
>> NOT a
>> requirement for registration.
>
> I'm guessing the main barrier wold be a the lack of a published
> specification --- I'm guessing a complete version of
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html published under the 
> main
> site (i.e. https://orgmode.org/standard.html) would be required.
>
> Looking for other uses of the .org extension, there doesn't seem 
> to be
> much. The main result is from "Lotus Organiser", which seems to be 
> a
> (discontinued) PIM from IBM which used .org as its file type in 
> the 1992
> release. Other than that it seems that Yamaha and SoundBlaster 
> have used
> it as an extension for organ audio samples.
>
> If it does seem possible to have text/org formally added as a mime 
> type,
> I would love to push this.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> All the best,
>
> Timothy.


-- 
[ stardiviner ]
       I try to make every word tell the meaning that I want to express.

       Blog: https://stardiviner.github.io/
       IRC(freenode): stardiviner, Matrix: stardiviner
       GPG: F09F650D7D674819892591401B5DF1C95AE89AC3

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi,

stardiviner <numbchild@gmail.com> writes:

> I would like to see this result too. Great to know this :)

Well, there is no "result" expected yet, because we did not yet
agreed to make a formal request.

Let's discuss this with care, and consider all possible outcomes.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

Just a quick note from me.

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
> Let's discuss this with care, and consider all possible 
> outcomes.

This is /exactly/ what I was hoping to prompt with this email.
I think it would be a nice idea (assuming feasibility), but it's
certainly not something to rush.

All the best,

Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

I'm still hoping for that discussion :P

To the Org community, if you have thoughts on this - please share them
:)

Timothy.

Me earlier:
> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>> Let's discuss this with care, and consider all possible outcomes.
>
> This is /exactly/ what I was hoping to prompt with this email.
> I think it would be a nice idea (assuming feasibility), but it's
> certainly not something to rush.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[hj-orgmode-1]

  I do not have much insight into all the possible outcomes (i.e. I am 
clueless about such outcomes) except one outcome - orgmode MIME type 
gets registered.  I think it would serve well the proliferation and 
popularization of org-mode. I.e. I do not see any negatives, only 
positives. After successful registration, I don't think anyone would 
really complain that their "Lotus Organiser" or organ audio samples do 
not get processed as usual.

  AFAIC, push this.

  H J

On 9/17/20 9:09 AM, TEC wrote:
> I'm still hoping for that discussion :P
>
> To the Org community, if you have thoughts on this - please share them
> :)
>
> Timothy.
>
> Me earlier:
>> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>>> Let's discuss this with care, and consider all possible outcomes.
>> This is /exactly/ what I was hoping to prompt with this email.
>> I think it would be a nice idea (assuming feasibility), but it's
>> certainly not something to rush.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi,

hj-orgmode-1@hj.proberto.com writes:

> I do not have much insight into all the possible outcomes (i.e. I am
> clueless about such outcomes) except one outcome - orgmode MIME type
> gets registered.  

If there is absolutely zero burden put on the shoulders of Org's
maintainers, then I'm all for it.

> I think it would serve well the proliferation and
> popularization of org-mode. 

Agreed.

Is anyone willing to check that there are no constraints?

Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Andrea]

Hi,

What are the pros?

About the cons: maybe we need to look more into the requirements.

I am looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2048 and the one that
concerns me a little is 2.2.6: I guess somebody would need to write a
bit of docs about security concerns. Or you can go the way Markdown did
it: from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763#section-2

"Security considerations:

      Markdown interpreted as plain text is relatively harmless.  A text
      editor need only display the text.  The editor SHOULD take care to
      handle control characters appropriately and to limit the effect of
      the Markdown to the text-editing area itself; malicious Unicode-
      based Markdown could, for example, surreptitiously change the
      directionality of the text.  An editor for normal text would
      already take these control characters into consideration, however.

      Markdown interpreted as a precursor to other formats, such as
      HTML, carries all of the security considerations as the target
      formats.  For example, HTML can contain instructions to execute
      scripts, redirect the user to other web pages, download remote
      content, and upload personally identifiable information.  Markdown
      also can contain islands of formal markup, such as HTML.  These
      islands of formal markup may be passed as they are, transformed,
      or ignored (perhaps because the islands are conditional or
      incompatible) when the Markdown is processed.  Since Markdown may
      have different interpretations depending on the tool and the
      environment, a better approach is to analyze (and sanitize or
      block) the output markup, rather than attempting to analyze the
      Markdown.
"

Do they have an org-babel?

Thanks,

Andrea

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Andrea]

Hi,

What are the pros?

About the cons: maybe we need to look more into the requirements.

I am looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2048 and the one that
concerns me a little is 2.2.6: I guess somebody would need to write a
bit of docs about security concerns. Or you can go the way Markdown did
it: from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763#section-2

"Security considerations:

      Markdown interpreted as plain text is relatively harmless.  A text
      editor need only display the text.  The editor SHOULD take care to
      handle control characters appropriately and to limit the effect of
      the Markdown to the text-editing area itself; malicious Unicode-
      based Markdown could, for example, surreptitiously change the
      directionality of the text.  An editor for normal text would
      already take these control characters into consideration, however.

      Markdown interpreted as a precursor to other formats, such as
      HTML, carries all of the security considerations as the target
      formats.  For example, HTML can contain instructions to execute
      scripts, redirect the user to other web pages, download remote
      content, and upload personally identifiable information.  Markdown
      also can contain islands of formal markup, such as HTML.  These
      islands of formal markup may be passed as they are, transformed,
      or ignored (perhaps because the islands are conditional or
      incompatible) when the Markdown is processed.  Since Markdown may
      have different interpretations depending on the tool and the
      environment, a better approach is to analyze (and sanitize or
      block) the output markup, rather than attempting to analyze the
      Markdown.
"

Do they have an org-babel?

Thanks,

Andrea

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> If there is absolutely zero burden put on the shoulders of Org's
> maintainers, then I'm all for it.

From the look of things, there's just effort in the initial 
creation.

>> I think it would serve well the proliferation and
>> popularization of org-mode.
>
> Agreed.

This is the main reason why I'm a fan of the idea :)

> Is anyone willing to check that there are no constraints?

I've read through https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838 and I 
couldn't see
any constraints placed on us beyond the initial registration's 
requirements.

For that, I think a formal syntax specification would be needed. 
Perhaps
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html will do? It looks 
complete.

I'm hoping we could then use https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763
(registration of text/markdown) as a template, where we could just 
link
to the syntax specification.

Perhaps it could be worth putting the syntax spec under the main 
site as
something like orgmode.org/syntax-spec.html.

I've also been considering spinning off the manual into a bit of a
specification document (e.g. less of a guide / how-to, stripped 
down to
just the bare information), so perhaps
orgmode.org/specification.html#syntax ? I'd really like some 
second
opinions.

> Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?

In about two months, I am.

It looks like creating and draft and then emailing it to
media-types@iana.org would probably be the best approach.

All the best,

Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi Timothy,

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

>> Is anyone willing to check that there are no constraints?
>
> I've read through https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838 and I couldn't
> see any constraints placed on us beyond the initial registration's
> requirements.

You register once and for all?  Is there some red tape involved in
maintaining the registration?

> For that, I think a formal syntax specification would be
> needed. Perhaps https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html will
> do? It looks complete.

We should first read https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html
and carefully check that it is up to date and still accurate, then
make it more user oriented (for now it more developers oriented.)

I'm ready to work on this before the end of the year.

> Perhaps it could be worth putting the syntax spec under the main
> site as something like orgmode.org/syntax-spec.html.

I would not go into this direction: as you know, I'd like the home 
of orgmode.org to be just one page (index.org/html) and move other
pages to Worg.  So let's not move org-syntax.org to the website,
it is good as a worg resource.

> I've also been considering spinning off the manual into a bit of a
> specification document (e.g. less of a guide / how-to, stripped down
> to just the bare information), so perhaps
> orgmode.org/specification.html#syntax ? I'd really like some second
> opinions.

This would be too many docs to maintain.

>> Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?
>
> In about two months, I am.

Okay, thanks!  Let's work on stabilizing Org syntax and reconsider the
registration idea then.  I will also ping future maintainers on this.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> You register once and for all?  Is there some red tape involved 
> in
> maintaining the registration?

Assuming I haven't misread/missed anything, the only thing that we 
might
cause a change is if the specification changes - but since it 
looks like
we can just link to our specification we probably wouldn't even 
need to
do that.

>> For that, I think a formal syntax specification would be
>> needed. Perhaps https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html 
>> will
>> do? It looks complete.
>
> We should first read 
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html
> and carefully check that it is up to date and still accurate, 
> then
> make it more user oriented (for now it more developers 
> oriented.)

I see. Would there be someone well suited to check that everything 
is
accurate? I wouldn't feel confident auditing the whole document by
myself.

> I'm ready to work on this before the end of the year.

Marvellous!

>> Perhaps it could be worth putting the syntax spec under the 
>> main
>> site as something like orgmode.org/syntax-spec.html.
>
> I would not go into this direction: as you know, I'd like the 
> home
> of orgmode.org to be just one page (index.org/html) and move 
> other
> pages to Worg.  So let's not move org-syntax.org to the website,
> it is good as a worg resource.

Mmm. My thoughts on having lots on Worg haven't changed, I was 
just
thinking it might seem more 'official' / better if the page were 
nearer
to the site root.

>> I've also been considering spinning off the manual into a bit 
>> of a
>> specification document (e.g. less of a guide / how-to, stripped 
>> down
>> to just the bare information), so perhaps
>> orgmode.org/specification.html#syntax ? I'd really like some 
>> second
>> opinions.
>
> This would be too many docs to maintain.

This was partly motivated from it sometimes being annoying to just
check what forms an element can take and not finding it easy to 
see in
the manual.

Yea, maintaining /another/ file doesn't seem like a good idea 
though...

>>> Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?
>>
>> In about two months, I am.
>
> Okay, thanks!  Let's work on stabilizing Org syntax and 
> reconsider the
> registration idea then.  I will also ping future maintainers on 
> this.

Sounds good! Thanks for being open to the idea :)

All the best,

Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> I see. Would there be someone well suited to check that everything is
> accurate? I wouldn't feel confident auditing the whole document by
> myself.

Well, "we" of course includes Nicolas and other core contributors, but
anyone is welcome.  This should not be done by a single person.

> Mmm. My thoughts on having lots on Worg haven't changed, I was just
> thinking it might seem more 'official' / better if the page were
> nearer to the site root.

I get that, but I feel it is not needed.

> This was partly motivated from it sometimes being annoying to just
> check what forms an element can take and not finding it easy to see in
> the manual.

If org-syntax.org becomes stable enough in Worg, we can link to this
page from the manual when necessary.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Wes Hardaker]

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> > Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?
> 
> In about two months, I am.

IETF person here.  If you want help or a co-author, I can help if needed.

[not a mime expert, but I've been involved with the IETF for ~25 years]
-- 
Wes Hardaker                                     
My Pictures:       http://capturedonearth.com/
My Thoughts:       http://blog.capturedonearth.com/

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes:

> IETF person here.  If you want help or a co-author, I can help 
> if needed.
>
> [not a mime expert, but I've been involved with the IETF for ~25 
> years]

Fantastic! I've never summited an RFC or interacted with the IETF 
before
in my life, so that sounds great to me :)

Thanks for volunteering,

Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Wes Hardaker]

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes:
> 
> > IETF person here.  If you want help or a co-author, I can help if
> > needed.
> >
> > [not a mime expert, but I've been involved with the IETF for ~25
> > years]
> 
> Fantastic! I've never summited an RFC or interacted with the IETF
> before in my life, so that sounds great to me :)

Ok, I'll try to create a template we can fill out in github next week
(I'm swamped this week with a deadline).
-- 
Wes Hardaker                                     
My Pictures:       http://capturedonearth.com/
My Thoughts:       http://blog.capturedonearth.com/

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC]

Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes:

> Ok, I'll try to create a template we can fill out in github next 
> week
> (I'm swamped this week with a deadline).

Sounds good :) I'm fairly busy for the next ~month and a half 
anyway so
I'm happy to accommodate delays.

Would it be a good idea to use the markdown RFC as a template? 
That's
what I was originally thinking.

Thanks,

Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Palak Mathur]

> On Oct 6, 2020, at 2:03 PM, TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes:
> 
>> Ok, I'll try to create a template we can fill out in github next week
>> (I'm swamped this week with a deadline).
> 
> Sounds good :) I'm fairly busy for the next ~month and a half anyway so
> I'm happy to accommodate delays.
> 
> Would it be a good idea to use the markdown RFC as a template? That's
> what I was originally thinking.
> 

Let me know if you need help. I can help out as well.


> Thanks,
> 
> Timothy.
> 

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Lennart C. Karssen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3078 bytes --]

Hi all,

On 01-10-2020 05:40, TEC wrote:
> 
> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>> If there is absolutely zero burden put on the shoulders of Org's
>> maintainers, then I'm all for it.
> 
> From the look of things, there's just effort in the initial creation.
> 
>>> I think it would serve well the proliferation and
>>> popularization of org-mode.
>>
>> Agreed.
> 
> This is the main reason why I'm a fan of the idea :)
> 
>> Is anyone willing to check that there are no constraints?
> 
> I've read through https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838 and I couldn't see
> any constraints placed on us beyond the initial registration's
> requirements.
> 
> For that, I think a formal syntax specification would be needed. Perhaps
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html will do? It looks complete.


One of the things I have been wondering about with regard to Org syntax
is the use of capital letters vs. lowercase ones for e.g. blocks and
options.

The org-syntax.html document linked above lists blocks as
#+BEGIN_NAME/#+END_NAME, #+KEY: VALUE, #+CALL: VALUE, #+ATTR_BACKEND,
etc. all in uppercase.

On the other hand, the manual states in the introduction: "Keywords and
blocks are written in uppercase to enhance their readability, but you
can use lowercase in your Org files."

At the same time, when I run org-export-dispatch to insert the default
export template (via C-c C-e # default on Org 9.3) I get all #+options,
#+title, etc. lines in lowercase.


Wouldn't it be a good idea to standardise on either uppercase or
lowercase? Limitting the standard to only one of the two case options
will probably spark a huge debate on which one to choose because one
side would have to change their behaviour. But at least for the Org code
that is generated automatically like in the above case of the default
export template I think choosing a 'preferred' option that is consistent
with the syntax document and the manual would help.


Best regards,

Lennart.

> 
> I'm hoping we could then use https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763
> (registration of text/markdown) as a template, where we could just link
> to the syntax specification.
> 
> Perhaps it could be worth putting the syntax spec under the main site as
> something like orgmode.org/syntax-spec.html.
> 
> I've also been considering spinning off the manual into a bit of a
> specification document (e.g. less of a guide / how-to, stripped down to
> just the bare information), so perhaps
> orgmode.org/specification.html#syntax ? I'd really like some second
> opinions.
> 
>> Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?
> 
> In about two months, I am.
> 
> It looks like creating and draft and then emailing it to
> media-types@iana.org would probably be the best approach.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Timothy.
> 

-- 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
L.C. Karssen
The Netherlands

lennart@karssen.org
http://blog.karssen.org
GPG key ID: A88F554A
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

"Lennart C. Karssen" <lennart@karssen.org> writes:

> Wouldn't it be a good idea to standardise on either uppercase or
> lowercase? Limitting the standard to only one of the two case options
> will probably spark a huge debate on which one to choose because one
> side would have to change their behaviour. But at least for the Org code
> that is generated automatically like in the above case of the default
> export template I think choosing a 'preferred' option that is consistent
> with the syntax document and the manual would help.

Org is standardized on lower case. Uppercase is used in the manual as
a poor man's bold, and supported for historical reasons.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi Wes,

Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes:

> Ok, I'll try to create a template we can fill out in github next week
> (I'm swamped this week with a deadline).

If you manage to make any progress on this, please share it with the
whole list so that interested people can possibly follow.

For the record, I think we should first enhance the Worg documentation
on Org's syntax before applying to register Org as a MIME type.  

https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html is useful but my feeling
is that it describes Org "syntax" from the point of view of the Emacs
parser -- we surely need something a bit more agnostic for registering
Org as MIME type.

I'm adding this as a call for help on https://updates.orgmode.org.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Palak Mathur]

> On Oct 24, 2020, at 7:09 AM, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Wes,
> 
> Wes Hardaker <wjhns209@hardakers.net> writes:
> 
>> Ok, I'll try to create a template we can fill out in github next week
>> (I'm swamped this week with a deadline).
> 
> If you manage to make any progress on this, please share it with the
> whole list so that interested people can possibly follow.
> 
> For the record, I think we should first enhance the Worg documentation
> on Org's syntax before applying to register Org as a MIME type.  
> 
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html is useful but my feeling
> is that it describes Org "syntax" from the point of view of the Emacs
> parser -- we surely need something a bit more agnostic for registering
> Org as MIME type.
> 
> I'm adding this as a call for help on https://updates.orgmode.org.
> 
> Best,
> 

I am fairly new to Org. Let me see if I can use it as a markup in an Editor other than Emacs. I will report on what syntax options are very Emacs specific, what are general and what can be ported. 



> -- 
> Bastien
> 

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi Palak,

Palak Mathur <palakmathur@gmail.com> writes:

> I am fairly new to Org. Let me see if I can use it as a markup in an
> Editor other than Emacs. I will report on what syntax options are very
> Emacs specific, what are general and what can be ported.

Thanks!  I think it is less a matter of *what* is described in
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html rather than *how* it is
described.

As the first paragraph says: 

  "This document describes and comments Org syntax as it is currently
  read by its parser (Org Elements)"

while we need a description of Org's syntax from the point of view of 
(1) a human writer and (2) any possible Org parser.

I don't know how difficult it is, but I suspect it is quite a lot of
work.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Leo Vivier]

Hi there,

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> As the first paragraph says: 
>
>   "This document describes and comments Org syntax as it is currently
>   read by its parser (Org Elements)"
>
> while we need a description of Org's syntax from the point of view of 
> (1) a human writer and (2) any possible Org parser.

I agree that (1) and (2) should be two different documents.  (2) would
be especially interesting since there are quite a few projects afoot to
parse Org documents outside of Emacs:
- go-org (Go)
  https://github.com/niklasfasching/go-org
- orgize (Rust)
  https://docs.rs/orgize/0.8.4/orgize/

They are in various stages of advancement, but a design document would
go a long way in federating those efforts.

> I don't know how difficult it is, but I suspect it is quite a lot of
> work.

I assume that it would be, yes.  However, as someone with a vested
interest in developing an efficient external parser for Org documents,
I’d love to contribute.  I’ve been playing around lately with ox.el to
write an exporter to Jupyter (more on that soon), and since it makes
extensive use of org-element.el, I’d have a modicum of knowledge upon
which I could initiate the effort.

Best,

-- 
Leo Vivier
Freelance Software Engineer
Website: www.leovivier.com | Blog: www.zaeph.net

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi Leo,

Leo Vivier <zaeph@zaeph.net> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> As the first paragraph says: 
>>
>>   "This document describes and comments Org syntax as it is currently
>>   read by its parser (Org Elements)"
>>
>> while we need a description of Org's syntax from the point of view of 
>> (1) a human writer and (2) any possible Org parser.
>
> I agree that (1) and (2) should be two different documents.  

Sorry, perhaps I was not clear: (1) and (2) do not need to be separate
documents. I think both can be described in a single document, my main
point was that the current org-syntax.org is from none of these points
of view.

> (2) would
> be especially interesting since there are quite a few projects afoot to
> parse Org documents outside of Emacs:
> - go-org (Go)
>   https://github.com/niklasfasching/go-org
> - orgize (Rust)
>   https://docs.rs/orgize/0.8.4/orgize/
>
> They are in various stages of advancement, but a design document would
> go a long way in federating those efforts.
>
>> I don't know how difficult it is, but I suspect it is quite a lot of
>> work.
>
> I assume that it would be, yes.  However, as someone with a vested
> interest in developing an efficient external parser for Org documents,
> I’d love to contribute.  I’ve been playing around lately with ox.el to
> write an exporter to Jupyter (more on that soon), and since it makes
> extensive use of org-element.el, I’d have a modicum of knowledge upon
> which I could initiate the effort.

Great, thanks for volunteering.  I think this is something you should
perhaps do with a long time Org user, ping-pong'ing with commits, not
alone.

Nicolas, what's your take on this?

Would it be okay for you if we rename worg/dev/org-syntax.org to
something like worg/dev/org-elements-syntax.org or would that be
confusing?

Would you have any advice on how to tackle worg/org-syntax.org in a
generic and useful way?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Leo Vivier]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Sorry, perhaps I was not clear: (1) and (2) do not need to be separate
> documents.

No, you were quite clear.  I just surmised that two documents would be
required, but upon thinking about it some more, (1) and (2) would make
for a cohesive whole.

> Great, thanks for volunteering.  I think this is something you should
> perhaps do with a long time Org user, ping-pong'ing with commits, not
> alone.

Sure, I’d be up for that.

> Would it be okay for you if we rename worg/dev/org-syntax.org to
> something like worg/dev/org-elements-syntax.org or would that be
> confusing?

Since we already have worg/dev/org-element-api.org [1], I think the
rename to worg/dev/org-element-syntax.org would be welcome.

Notes :
[1] https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-element-api.html

-- 
Leo Vivier
Freelance Software Engineer
Website: www.leovivier.com | Blog: www.zaeph.net

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Palak Mathur]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 24, 2020, at 7:50 AM, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Palak,
> 
> Palak Mathur <palakmathur@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I am fairly new to Org. Let me see if I can use it as a markup in an
>> Editor other than Emacs. I will report on what syntax options are very
>> Emacs specific, what are general and what can be ported.
> 
> Thanks!  I think it is less a matter of *what* is described in
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html rather than *how* it is
> described.
> 
> As the first paragraph says: 
> 
>  "This document describes and comments Org syntax as it is currently
>  read by its parser (Org Elements)"
> 
> while we need a description of Org's syntax from the point of view of 
> (1) a human writer and (2) any possible Org parser.
> 
I understand that. 

> I don't know how difficult it is, but I suspect it is quite a lot of
> work.
> 

Yes, it is going to be some work. I will try to get something started and share a draft. 


> -- 
> Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Hi Leo,

Leo Vivier <zaeph@zaeph.net> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Sorry, perhaps I was not clear: (1) and (2) do not need to be separate
>> documents.
>
> No, you were quite clear.  I just surmised that two documents would be
> required, but upon thinking about it some more, (1) and (2) would make
> for a cohesive whole.

Okay -- perhaps we'll decide otherwise when we can judge by the content.

>> Great, thanks for volunteering.  I think this is something you should
>> perhaps do with a long time Org user, ping-pong'ing with commits, not
>> alone.
>
> Sure, I’d be up for that.

Thanks!  Anyone else to work on this with Leo?

>> Would it be okay for you if we rename worg/dev/org-syntax.org to
>> something like worg/dev/org-elements-syntax.org or would that be
>> confusing?
>
> Since we already have worg/dev/org-element-api.org [1], I think the
> rename to worg/dev/org-element-syntax.org would be welcome.

(Just to be clear, since the quotation context suggests otherwise, I
was really asking Nicolas, as he's the author of this document.)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Bastien]

Palak Mathur <palakmathur@gmail.com> writes:

> Yes, it is going to be some work. I will try to get something
> started and share a draft.

Can you and Leo work together on this ?

Perhaps you can share a first draft (from the user point of view) that
Leo can consolidate (from a generic parser point of view) ?

Thanks to both for your help!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Palak Mathur]

> On Oct 24, 2020, at 10:40 AM, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> Palak Mathur <palakmathur@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Yes, it is going to be some work. I will try to get something
>> started and share a draft.
> 
> Can you and Leo work together on this ?
> 
> Perhaps you can share a first draft (from the user point of view) that
> Leo can consolidate (from a generic parser point of view) ?
> 

Sure! 

> Thanks to both for your help!
> 





> -- 
> Bastien

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Timothy]

Hello again,

I'm still a fan of Org as an IETF registered MEME type, but I recently
heard of what Rust did to get text/rust registered on Linux systems:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90487

Perhaps we could submit a similar patch?

--
Timothy.

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Carlos Pita]

Hi,

in https://list.orgmode.org/87tuuw3n15.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr/#t it's stated:

> Org is standardized on lower case. Uppercase is used in the manual as
> a poor man's bold, and supported for historical reasons.

But C-c C-x p still inserts stuff like:

   :PROPERTIES:
   :ARCHIVE:  ...
   :END:

Maybe it should be updated or maybe I don't fully understand the
convention, perhaps it's just for blocks?

But then c-a-p is very lenient since it lists lower and upper case block
variants even when I typed a lower case prefix, and upper case usually
will go first in the list, hence promoting a seemingly bad practice.

Can you clarify?

Thank you in advance,
Carlos

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Ihor Radchenko]

Carlos Pita <carlosjosepita2@gmail.com> writes:

>> Org is standardized on lower case. Uppercase is used in the manual as
>> a poor man's bold, and supported for historical reasons.
>
> But C-c C-x p still inserts stuff like:
>
>    :PROPERTIES:
>    :ARCHIVE:  ...
>    :END:
>
> Maybe it should be updated or maybe I don't fully understand the
> convention, perhaps it's just for blocks?

The conversation was about keywords and similar constructs (i.e.
^#+keyword). You are looking at property drawer and properties inside.
There is no preference here, though internally properties in property
drawer are all converted to upper case.

> But then c-a-p is very lenient since it lists lower and upper case block
> variants even when I typed a lower case prefix, and upper case usually
> will go first in the list, hence promoting a seemingly bad practice.

Could you clarify what is "c-a-p"?

Best,
Ihor

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Carlos Pita]

Hi Igor,

> The conversation was about keywords and similar constructs (i.e.
> ^#+keyword). You are looking at property drawer and properties inside.
> There is no preference here, though internally properties in property
> drawer are all converted to upper case.

Ok, thank you very much for the clarification.

>> But then c-a-p is very lenient since it lists lower and upper case block
>> variants even when I typed a lower case prefix, and upper case usually
>> will go first in the list, hence promoting a seemingly bad practice.
>
> Could you clarify what is "c-a-p"?

Yes, I just meant completion-at-point. At least some org functions,
which I believe are implemented using pcomplete and then exposed through
the completion-at-point interface, provide completions in both lower and
uppercase variants and except when completion-ignore-case is nil (not
the default) uppercase candidates will be sorted first in the list.
It's often quite inconvenient to scroll down a completion menu to pick
the lowercase completion for a short prefix, which either promotes using
the uppercase variant at hand or offsets the benefits of
autocompletion. Moreover, popular external collections of snippets have
already adopted the lowercase convention of org-mode, hence introducing
inconsistency in the document when one mixes both sources of completion
(lowercase snippets and org-mode uppercase completions). So perhaps
uppercase completions should be provided only when the user explicitly
typed an uppercase prefix. What do you think?

Best regards,
Carlos

Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[Timothy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 237 bytes --]

Hi  Carlos,

Just a minor point from me, this really should be a new thread IMO. While not
much may have happened with the IETF RFC, it’s still something on my mind that I
hope to get back to eventually.

All the best,
Timothy

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

[Karl Voit]

Hi,

* TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm still hoping for that discussion :P
>
> To the Org community, if you have thoughts on this - please share them
> :)

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. 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 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.

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


[1] 
https://karl-voit.at/2021/11/27/orgdown/
https://emacsconf.org/2021/talks/org-outside/
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown
https://karl-voit.at/2021/12/02/Orgdown-feedback/

[2]
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org

[3]
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Orgdown-Levels.org

[4] https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/issues/8

-- 
Personal Information Management > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/pim/
Emacs-related > http://Karl-Voit.at/tags/emacs/

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]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Bastien]

Hi Karl and Timothy,

thank you Karl for reviving this important topic.

I think our collective priority should be to work on
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-synxtax.html so that it reflects the
current Org syntax.  Hopefully we can do this before Org 9.6.  As
discussed with TEC, we can factor out suggestions from this document
so that it is not a mix of facts and hypotheses.

Then we can work on suggestions for evolutions of the current Org-mode
syntax chunk by chunk, as a long-term goal for stabilizing changes for
Org 10 (2023 ?)

What occurred to me while rereading this thread is that definining a
syntax for a IETF RFC on an Org mimetype probably needs to be done not
just by this Emacs Org-mode community, but by bringing together other
"consumers" of .org files, from ecosystems outside of Emacs.

Such a collective work could lead to define what subset of the Org
syntax is useful as the corner-stone for .org files everywhere - which
is what you rightfully brought up with "Orgdown".

If successful, such a process could end up in defining the minimal and
official "Org syntax" while allowing implementations (like the one for
Emacs org-mode) to supercharge this syntax if deemed useful.

Perhaps TEC is right and we will end up having the minimal syntax
being the one we currently use for Org-mode: we'll see.

But we need volunteers: one to work on worg/dev/org-synxtax.org (I'm
assuming TEC can lead the work here) and one to set up a discussion
with people implementing Org in various places (you ?).

I suggest to take this sequentially and not tackle the second work
before we're done with the first one.

2 cts,

-- 
 Bastien

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

[Karl Voit]

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/

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

[Karl Voit]

Hi Bastien,

* Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hi Karl and Timothy,
>
> thank you Karl for reviving this important topic.
>
> I think our collective priority should be to work on
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-synxtax.html so that it reflects the
> current Org syntax.  Hopefully we can do this before Org 9.6.  As
> discussed with TEC, we can factor out suggestions from this document
> so that it is not a mix of facts and hypotheses.

A valid approach.

I think we do have two different approaches ongoing here. With OD1 I
tried to come up with a minimal set of Org-mode syntax elements that
are very easy to implement in non-Emacs tools in order to get an
easy intro to this universe. This is a bottom-up approach.

Defining the whole Org-mode syntax as you've suggested is a complete
definition of Orgdown (or OD∞ as of
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Orgdown-Levels.org
) which is a top-down approach.

So far, I don´t see a conflict here. This may arise with OD2, OD3,
... definitions if they will ever exist.

> Then we can work on suggestions for evolutions of the current Org-mode
> syntax chunk by chunk, as a long-term goal for stabilizing changes for
> Org 10 (2023 ?)

Sounds great!

> What occurred to me while rereading this thread is that definining a
> syntax for a IETF RFC on an Org mimetype probably needs to be done not
> just by this Emacs Org-mode community, but by bringing together other
> "consumers" of .org files, from ecosystems outside of Emacs.
>
> Such a collective work could lead to define what subset of the Org
> syntax is useful as the corner-stone for .org files everywhere - which
> is what you rightfully brought up with "Orgdown".

I tried to collect projects on
https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org

> If successful, such a process could end up in defining the minimal and
> official "Org syntax" while allowing implementations (like the one for
> Emacs org-mode) to supercharge this syntax if deemed useful.

To me, this sound aligned with the idea of OD levels OD1 and OD∞.

> Perhaps TEC is right and we will end up having the minimal syntax
> being the one we currently use for Org-mode: we'll see.
>
> But we need volunteers: one to work on worg/dev/org-synxtax.org (I'm
> assuming TEC can lead the work here) and one to set up a discussion
> with people implementing Org in various places (you ?).

What kind of discussion is on your mind? At the moment, I tend to
think that the Org-mode community should provide directions by
developing a formal definition of the syntax and maybe later-on
define viable sub-sets (the OD levels?) so that tool developers
don't have to implement the whole large thing.

At this stage, I don't know what discussions you're trying to start
here. Can you elaborate?

> I suggest to take this sequentially and not tackle the second work
> before we're done with the first one.

I interpret this as "discussions with tool developers after working
on the formal Org definition". This would be my understanding and
also my thought.

-- 
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/

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> 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. 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 do not like the idea of using Orgdown term for MIME type.
MIME type already imply syntax, not the implementation. I think that it
will be better to keep "Org" term for MIME type and avoid too much
confusion.

The Emacs-independent description of the syntax is being worked on in
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html.

> 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].

I do understand and accept your idea about simplified syntax
description. As we are going to need the syntax white-paper for MIME
type registration anyway, we may as well define your syntax levels in
that document. I envision a section in
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html that will define subsets
syntax elements can be supported.

The first step now if finalizing
https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html. It would help if other Org
users read through the document and try to spot what is missing,
unclear, or inaccurate.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
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/yantar92>

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

[Ihor Radchenko]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> I tried to collect projects on
> https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org

Would you be interested to contribute to https://orgmode.org/tools.html?

>> Perhaps TEC is right and we will end up having the minimal syntax
>> being the one we currently use for Org-mode: we'll see.
>>
>> But we need volunteers: one to work on worg/dev/org-synxtax.org (I'm
>> assuming TEC can lead the work here) and one to set up a discussion
>> with people implementing Org in various places (you ?).
>
> What kind of discussion is on your mind? At the moment, I tend to
> think that the Org-mode community should provide directions by
> developing a formal definition of the syntax and maybe later-on
> define viable sub-sets (the OD levels?) so that tool developers
> don't have to implement the whole large thing.
>
> At this stage, I don't know what discussions you're trying to start
> here. Can you elaborate?

You can start from reading https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html
and providing suggestions to improve it. That document will eventually
become the syntax reference.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
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/yantar92>