* TEC <tecos...@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!




[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/

Reply via email to