Karl Voit <devn...@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>
