---- On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 14:41:29 +0100  Ihor Radchenko  wrote --- 

 > I do not see much benefit changing "todo list" to "to-do list". Both are
 > clear and both are grammatically correct.

I said "TODO" to "to-do".  I was reacting to it being all caps.  I'm sorry I 
didn't say that.

When it's all caps, TODO is a keyword.   Otherwise, it's prose.   The following 
are different (AFAIK):

* TODO Finish this headline
* todo Finish this headline
* to-do Finish this headline

Agreed, it's a minor detail.

 > > Regarding "markup language," that reads to me like programmer jargon.
 > > What does it mean and why should someone care?  Again, who are we
 > > writing to?  A markup language is a notation for formatting,
 > > structure, and relationships.  I think it would be best to directly
 > > say that.
 > What about "plain text file format"?

I like that it's less technical.  I worry that it's less precise.  

I still think a word like "notation," that doesn't derive from computer 
culture, has a greater chance of being meaningful to people from other domains, 
like authors, scientists, or engineers.  Of course, these same people can 
easily understand the idea when they see it.  It's more important to explain 
why it matters and that's something we're already doing.

"Markup language" is fine.  It's correct.  Org syntax is a markup language.

I'm happy to leave it rather than risk bike-shedding it more than I have.  If 
we learn that it caused friction for a newcomer, we can change it easily enough.

 > > I would also soften that Org "relies" on its markup.  It doesn't.  I
 > > used Org only for lists for a long time.  I believe lists to be a
 > > fundamental feature of Org (and hence a great item for the first
 > > sentence).  Lists are as simple as dashes.  It's hard to say that
 > > dashes before list items is a markup language.
 > Yet, it is. You cannot, for example, use "." as bullets in Org mode.
 > Also, indentation matters in Org lists, while it does not matter in more
 > free-style writing.

Fair points.  I concede.  :)

 > > Finally, I don't think the file extension is relevant for the first
 > > paragraph.  Technically, an extension isn't necessary.  A person can
 > > call M-x org-mode or use a file local variable.  Worse, I think the
 > > extension contradicts the point that any text editor can view an Org
 > > file.  Ever try to open a .org file in Windows?  It asks for the
 > > program.  Yes, *technically* Windows could open a .org file *if* the
 > > person opening it knew which program to use (or to change the
 > > extension to something like .txt).  Again, who are we writing to?  If
 > > it's someone who believes file extensions matter, then this would
 > > introduce unnecessary friction.  It seems best to avoid it.  Better to
 > > do as you've done and say Org is readable (which it is) rather than
 > > specify the extension (which doesn't really matter).
 > I am mostly neutral here, but I can see an argument why mentioning .org
 > extension may be useful - unlike Windows, GitHub does expect .org file
 > extension specifically to render Org mode files. The same goes for
 > non-Emacs editors that support Org markup. For example, Vim/Neovim.
That's a good point.

Knowing about the .org extension is useful.  I don't think it hurts anything 
other than taking up valuable space.  If we need to bump something from the 
first paragraph, this gets my vote.

Matt Trzcinski
Emacs Org contributor (ob-shell)
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode

Reply via email to