Russell Adams writes: > What makes Org dramatically different is the editing experience in > Emacs. Collapsing the outline, filtering on metadata, exports, agenda, > etc. Those are Emacs features, not specific to the actual markup > format. > > My impression is we already have stretched our resources thin trying > to maintain Org. Pushing to provide compatibility with non-Emacs tools > seems a poor use of their time, and rude to ask of them. > > If non-Emacs users and coders want to use Org formatted files, they > are free to spend their time customizing their tools to make it > work. If the Org project owes anything to anyone, it's a consistent > experience for the users who have used Org for years. Not changes to > satisfy potential users or follow trendy fads. > > My experience has been that Org's markup is so simple and could be > summarized in a few lines. Anything more complex enters the territory > of Emacs only features (ie: drawers. exports, view control, source > blocks, reporting). Those are unlikely to be portable, so we're back > to "use Emacs".
I think that I cannot agree more with this. Org Mode is GNU Emacs, and the magic of Org Mode is the magic of GNU Emacs. That's why I insist that going to Org means going to Emacs. Best regards, Juan Manuel
