On 2021-11-29, at 19:27, M. ‘quintus’ Gülker <m...@guelker.eu> wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 29. November 2021 schrieb Karl Voit: >> It seems to be the case that the name "Orgdown" is the reason why >> the Org-mode community does not support the idea of an >> implementation-agnostic definition of the syntax. Which is ... kinda >> funny if you think about it. >> >> Well if the project is not working out, at least I made my point and >> we continue to have all those misunderstandings and lack of Orgdown >> support in 3rd party tools (because Org-mode is way too big). > > I think the project has value; better tooling outside of Emacs is > something org can only profit from in my opinion. One point that has not > been raised yet are scenarios of collaborative work; I would enjoy it > quite a bit if I could work on documents together with people who do not > like Emacs as an editor for whatever reason. Currently, org as a file > format is pretty much excluded if collaboration is intended with someone > who does not use Emacs. The natural choice in these cases is Markdown. This! >> Oh, there is a very large danger here of getting something that is >> not compatible with Org-mode any more. I don't think that this would >> be a good thing. At least the different flavors killed the fun of >> Markdown for me. > > The astonishing thing is that most people manage to get along despite of > the incompatibilities of the different Markdown flavours. Otherwise > Markdown would not be such a success. Why is this? What can be learned > from this for creating org tools outside of Emacs? Actually surveying > this might be of interest. > > Maybe most documents are very simple files. README files for FLOSS > projects, forum posts, blog posts. For such content the features where > the Markdown implementations differ are usually not required. It > suffices to use unstyled text, headings, code blocks, quotes, emphasis. > That is it basically. org shines on documents where more is required -- > documentation, books, since recently scientific articles. Markdown’s > common subset is not expressive enough for these documents, whereas for > simple documents there is not much benefit in trading in Markdown for > org. Thus, maybe it is more fruitful to try to market org(down) as a > markup for complex documents, with the added benefit that it does > incidentally also cover simple documents nicely on par with Markdown. I agree. When I type Markdown (and I often do, in a few places), I mainly use `backticks` (single and triple ones) for code etc., _italics_, - sometimes - bulleted - lists, > quotations (not very often), and a # Heading on rare occasions. That's pretty much it. Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://mbork.pl