Ihor Radchenko writes:
> I think we need to use rewrite rule here in addition to moving the file.
> If we simply move the file, old links will be broken.
Done now, thanks.
--
Bastien
Bastien writes:
> A few suggestions:
>
> - Make it a description of the syntax of the latest stable Org. (For
> now let's consider 9.6 to be the latest stable as we are working on
> releasing it soon.) Perhaps this is already the case and I missed
> it?
Yes, it should be consistent with
Bastien writes:
> - Promote the page to orgmode.org/worg/org-syntax.html: the /dev/ path
> in the current URL makes it read like it is the syntax for the "dev"
> version.
I think we need to use rewrite rule here in addition to moving the file.
If we simply move the file, old links will be
I also want to chip in with a thank-you for the org syntax specification page.
As someone who's working on a custom org exporter, this is a very useful
resource for finding out how elements are structured within org-mode.
Thanks,
Rohit
Hi Timothy,
I'm late to the party, but *thanks* for these important improvements
on the https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html page!
A few suggestions:
- Make it a description of the syntax of the latest stable Org. (For
now let's consider 9.6 to be the latest stable as we are working
Tom Gillespie writes:
> 3. When I say grammar in this context I mean specifically an eBNF that
>generates a LALR(1) or LR(1) parser. This is narrower than the
>definition used in the document, which includes things that have to
>be implemented in the tokenizer, or in a pass after the
Hi Ihor,
Thank you very much for the detailed responses. Let me start with
some context.
1. A number of the comments that I made fall into the brainstorming
category, so they don't need to make their way into the document at
this time. I agree that it is critical for this document to
Tom Gillespie writes:
> Extremely in favor of removing switches. There are so many better ways
> to do this now that aren't like some eldritch unix horror crawling up
> out of the abyss and into the eBNF :)
I also agree that switches and $$-style equations may be deprecated.
We can
1. Do not
Hi Timothy,
I have attached a patch with some modifications and a bunch of
comments (as footnotes). More replies in line. Thank you for all your
work on this!
Tom
> Marking this as depreciated would have no effect on Org’s current behaviour,
> but we could:
>
> Mark as depreciated now-ish
>
Hi,
With respect to readability, I only mean to point out that the $…$
syntax is one less character, and that the \(\) characters are quite
overloaded.
this is a good opportunity to point out that $/$$ are very much second
class citizens in LaTeX now, no matter what you may see in old
Hi Sebastien,
Thanks for your comments, and your thoughts on the proposed deprecation.
It’s worth explicitly considering why we wouldn’t want to steer people away from
the TeX-syntax LaTeX fragments, so I am glad you have brought up some reasons.
I do not find myself agreeing with them however,
Hi,
The new document seems much clearer. It makes a nice complement to the
manual and we should definitely lose the (draft). Thank you Timothy
for the work.
Lastly, having spent a while looking at the syntax, I’m wondering if
we should take this opportunity to mark some of the syntactic
Hi All,
I’ve talked about adding citation syntax to the org-syntax document before, and
previously expressed the thought that it could be generally improved quite a
bit. This has culminated me in spending the last few days straight working on a
rewrite of org-syntax.org to try to bring it closer
13 matches
Mail list logo
