Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Tim Cross writes:
>
>> ... while I totally agree we should work
>> very hard not to break compatibility or adversely affect other projects
>> which are built on top of org mode, like org-roam, we also don't want to
>> find ourselves in a position where we cannot
Tim Cross writes:
> ... while I totally agree we should work
> very hard not to break compatibility or adversely affect other projects
> which are built on top of org mode, like org-roam, we also don't want to
> find ourselves in a position where we cannot improve/enhance org mode
> because of
Tim Cross writes:
> "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" writes:
>> The change to electric indent broke my workflow badly (always having to
>> undo the indentation after every new headline), and it took long until I
>> found out how to avoid that.
> environment. While this change may have 'broken' your
"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
> Russell Adams writes:
>
>> Did Org break your Org editing experience in Emacs for your Org files,
>> or did this change just break some of the finer formatting details of
>> your exported Org file?
>
> The change to
Russell Adams writes:
> Did Org break your Org editing experience in Emacs for your Org files,
> or did this change just break some of the finer formatting details of
> your exported Org file?
The change to electric indent broke my workflow badly (always having to
undo the indentation after
i think the big change was v9.
On 12/9/21, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:21, Russell Adams wrote:
>> Did Org break your Org editing experience in Emacs for your Org files,
>> or did this change just break some of the finer formatting details of
>> your exported Org file?
>
On Thursday, 9 Dec 2021 at 16:21, Russell Adams wrote:
> Did Org break your Org editing experience in Emacs for your Org files,
> or did this change just break some of the finer formatting details of
> your exported Org file?
It's been a while but, IIRC, the latter to a large extent; I should
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 10:46:34AM +, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> Org v8 in particular was a major step forward but broke many of my
> org files.
I know we're beating a dead horse, but can you clarify.
Did Org break your Org editing experience in Emacs for your Org files,
or did this change just
On Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 17:16, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> If you have 1400 slides of lectures, all carefully laid out to convey
Been there, done that. I've learned to not upgrade org (or Emacs) for
a few weeks before the start of term!
I am a big fan of backwards compatibility but
Timothy writes:
> For the sake of staying vaguely on-track, I think it’s worth noting that
> Ihor’s
> comments make no mention of changing the Org syntax, or creating an abstract
> definition (that has existed as a WIP for years).
I think Dr. Babenhauser referred to another ongoing thread "Raw
Hi Arne,
> I am wording this so strongly because we currently have talk about
> creating more abstract org syntax.
>
> This is the situation in which the temptation to skip backwards
> compatibility is highest — as is the cost of that, because not updating
> will quickly not be an option (because
Tim Cross writes:
> Russell Adams writes:
>> That Org can also be used to export to other formats is both a
>> blessing and a curse. Org can only do high level constructs in the
>> languages it exports to, and really should only be expected to do just
>> that. It's a paper thin macro or
Tim Cross writes:
> What really doesn't help is to immediately jump to extremes and start
> talking about making something volatile just because change is
> mentioned.
I am wording this so strongly because we currently have talk about
creating more abstract org syntax.
This is the situation
Russell Adams writes:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 08:22:31PM +0100, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> > - Anything outside of basic Org syntax, tables and source blocks I do
>> >directly in latex. Images are a good example. I will use latex code
>> >for the image, sizing, orientation,
"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
> Russell Adams writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 05:16:20PM +0100, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>>
>>> Tim Cross writes:
>>>
> To date, I only had a bigger problem once (and that hurt a lot, because
> it was just
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 08:22:31PM +0100, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > - Anything outside of basic Org syntax, tables and source blocks I do
> >directly in latex. Images are a good example. I will use latex code
> >for the image, sizing, orientation, etc instead of relying on
Russell Adams writes:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 05:16:20PM +0100, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>
>> Tim Cross writes:
>>
>> > Backwards compatibility is important and changes should never be done
>> > lightly. However, that doesn't mean they don't occur (we have already
>> > had breaking
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 05:16:20PM +0100, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>
> Tim Cross writes:
>
> > Backwards compatibility is important and changes should never be done
> > lightly. However, that doesn't mean they don't occur (we have already
> > had breaking changes, so old org files are
Tim Cross writes:
> Ihor Radchenko writes:
>
>> Tim Cross writes:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, Emacs development continues and new features/capabilities
>>> continue to be added. In particular, a new feature is added which is
>>> extremely powerful and would be a huge benefit for Emacs org-mode users.
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Tim Cross writes:
>
>> Meanwhile, Emacs development continues and new features/capabilities
>> continue to be added. In particular, a new feature is added which is
>> extremely powerful and would be a huge benefit for Emacs org-mode users.
>> However, there is a
Tim Cross writes:
> I don't disagree with this objective. My objection is to changing the
> emphasis or priority of org mode as an Emacs mode to a general technical
> specification for a small part of what is org-mode, the markup (I will
> outline the concerns I have in doing this below).
I
Karl Voit writes:
>> Now, we need to understand what kind of people may be looking to
>> orgmode.org website.
>>
>> 1. Existing emacs users
>> 2. Non-emacs users interested in plain text markup
>> 3. Non-emacs users interested in GTD/project management, etc
>>"Org mode: your life in plain
Vincent Breton writes:
> Hi,
>
> Org mode needs to have his pdf documentation on the official web page
> of documentation : https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/org.html
>
> How much time for example to copy http://www.presentiel.com/org/org.pdf
> file on the official web site for gnu
"Gerry Agbobada" writes:
> Just not to leave this be a wild guess or a lone data-point, I want to say
> that I’m exactly in the same case, and I really don’t want to bring up
> anything I do related to org-mode here because of this kind of backlash
> without which I feel really better. Too
Hi,
Org mode needs to have his pdf documentation on the official web page
of documentation : https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/org.html
How much time for example to copy http://www.presentiel.com/org/org.pdf
file on the official web site for gnu documentation, or if you prefer
to
Hi,
* Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>
> Now, we need to understand what kind of people may be looking to
> orgmode.org website.
>
> 1. Existing emacs users
> 2. Non-emacs users interested in plain text markup
> 3. Non-emacs users interested in GTD/project management, etc
>"Org mode: your life in
Hi Russell,
> To my esteemed colleague, I have a few comments for your comments on
> my comments. ;]
Lovely. I happen to have one or two remarks on your comments^{2} :P
> I’m all for the idea of tightening up documentation to make Org a more
> polished product. The issue is when the
Hi,
* Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>
> The fact is that e.g. Github already provides support for Org markup.
> They do it for their own profit and we cannot stop them. If we have a
> controlled criteria about quality of third-party Org mode support, there
> will be means to interfere with non-free
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:47:28AM +0800, Timothy wrote:
> I have a few comments on your comments :)
To my esteemed colleague, I have a few comments for your comments on
my comments. ;]
> > How many syntax documents are we supposed to maintain outside of the working
> > implementation in Emacs
Hello everybody,
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, at 18:59, Tom Gillespie wrote:
> I follow this list, I keep the community up to date with my work,
> I have no idea where to look for other Org related dicussions,
> nor frankly do I have time to look for them. I suspect I am not
> alone in this.
Just not to
Hi Russell,
I have a few comments on your comments :)
> These kind of issues snowball because we are also indirectly asking
> for our coders and maintainers to consider those external tools while
> continuing to support Org.
As I read it, considering other tools was just in the respect of
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 03:35:39PM +0800, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Dear Fellow Orgers,
>
> The recent spike of discussions following Karl's presentation in
> Emacsconf 2021 revealed a lot of controversy among Org and Emacs
> enthusiasts. Yet, Karl named a number of very real problems surrounding
>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 07:25:02PM +0100, M. ‘quintus’ Gülker wrote:
>
> We started with an interoperability topic and now we are discussing
> whether the intent is to take away software freedom from Emacs org
> users. I cannot help but to find this connection far-fetched. Nobody
> is suggesting
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 09:59:42AM -0800, Tom Gillespie wrote:
> I think it is a major strategic mistake to exclude discussions
> about interoperability from this list.
I don't think discussion on the list (or irc) is a problem. It's all
on topic if it's related to Org-mode. As you said, users
Am Montag, dem 06. Dezember 2021 schrieb Tom Gillespie:
> [On not excluding discussions about org markup from the mailing list]
Thank you for writing this up. I agree with it. This discussion has
taken routes which I would never have expected. We started with an
interoperability topic and now
Hi all,
I have a much longer mail in the works, a quick one for now.
I think it is a major strategic mistake to exclude discussions
about interoperability from this list. As Bastien pointed out in
his talk at Emacsconf there is only a single list for both users
and developers. Discussion about
Hi Greg,
Greg Minshall writes:
> i hope we don't adopt such an "official policy" regarding discussions on
> this list. i don't think we've had any problems where non-FSF/GNU
> topics have somehow swamped our discussions.
Not that I want to put on a censor hat, far from it :-). But this is
On 05/12/2021 14:35, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
The recent spike of discussions following Karl's presentation in
Emacsconf 2021 revealed a lot of controversy among Org and Emacs
enthusiasts. Yet, Karl named a number of very real problems surrounding
Org mode usage outside Emacs.
WDYT?
Ihor, I
Ihor,
> Search result is just an entrance for users to be curious about the
> new beast of "Org mode". The website front page is the means to make
> users try. And the Org mode itself is the way to make users fall in
> love with Org in one way or another (even unrelated to Emacs [at least
>
Juan Manuel (and, Tim, i think),
> On the other hand, we must not forget that Org, as part of Emacs, is
> part of GNU, and this is a mailing list from the GNU project. I think
> everything related to the (possible) extension of GNU Org Mode outside
> of GNU Emacs (even in software incompatible
Hi Timohy,
Timothy writes:
> I don’t think Ihor is suggesting we stop indicating that org-mode is part of
> Emacs.
Of course, I am convinced that Ihor is not saying that Org is not part
of Emacs, and I have to make it clear, that I have never suggested such
a thing. What's more, I understand
Hi Juan,
> 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.
I don’t think Ihor is suggesting we stop indicating that org-mode is part of
Emacs. I think there’s
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
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Tim Cross writes:
>
>> I think your working off a false premise. Your view is that org mode
>> should be available in other editors/software so that others can realise
>> the power and benefits it provides. I can understand that position.
>
> A clarification: my
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 06:59:20PM +, Juan Manuel Macías wrote:
> Frustration every time I want to recommend Org to many of my friends
> and colleagues, who don't even use Emacs.
I think this is the core of every interoperability argument: "Why do
we have to use Emacs to use Org?" It's called
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 8:42 AM Tim Cross wrote:
>
>> I think your working off a false premise. Your view is that org mode
>> should be available in other editors/software so that others can realise
>> the power and benefits it provides. I can understand that
Hi Ihor,
Thank you for your email. I have little to add to you analysis and suggestions
other than my strong agreement. However, I will give some of my thoughts that
lead me to this position.
Ultimately, we have a choice. Do we wish to be hostile, or welcoming to interest
in Org outside
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Ok. Let me explain my thought process.
>
> First of all, there is no burden on users of Org mode in making edits to
> orgmode.org. It is a burden on Org contributors.
>
> One of the aims of my proposal is reducing this burden by involving
> non-emacs users to provide
Tim Cross writes:
> - The suggested org mode in a browser example is unlikely to be
> acceptable to the FSF (or RMS). The FSF is very much against cloud
> based computing services or any web service which uses non-free
> Javascript (which is most of them and one of the many reasons Github
Tim Cross writes:
> I think your working off a false premise. Your view is that org mode
> should be available in other editors/software so that others can realise
> the power and benefits it provides. I can understand that position.
A clarification: my premise is that org mode should be
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 8:42 AM Tim Cross wrote:
> I think your working off a false premise. Your view is that org mode
> should be available in other editors/software so that others can realise
> the power and benefits it provides. I can understand that position.
>
> However, the FSF position
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> Juan Manuel Macías writes:
>
>> Yes, sorry for not explaining myself well: I was also referring to
>> search results, not the title in the web site...
>>
>> But the question is: what need is there to remove the reference to Emacs
>> in the search result? I think the
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
> Ihor Radchenko writes:
>
>> The website title is "Org mode for Emacs", repelling users who _do
>>not want_ to use Org inside Emacs. Maybe we can do better? Something
>>with less accent on Emacs like "Org mode: your life in plain text"
>
> I am not at all in
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
> Yes, sorry for not explaining myself well: I was also referring to
> search results, not the title in the web site...
>
> But the question is: what need is there to remove the reference to Emacs
> in the search result? I think the emphasis is necessary. As we say in
Juan Manuel Macías wrote/hat geschrieben on/am 05.12.2021 12:08:
Ihor Radchenko writes:
I view "Org Mode" as a "brand name". Something uniquely identifying Org
mode and serving as a search term.
Yes, it makes sense.
Is it your principal position about the title specifically? Do you think
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> I view "Org Mode" as a "brand name". Something uniquely identifying Org
> mode and serving as a search term.
Yes, it makes sense.
> Is it your principal position about the title specifically? Do you think
> that just referring to Emacs in the website description is not
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
> I am not at all in favor of separating the 'Org Mode' name from 'GNU
> Emacs'.
To clarify, I do not suggest to remove the linkage between Org mode and
GNU Emacs. Just change the emphasis. I had no intention to remove the
reference to Emacs from search result. It
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> The website title is "Org mode for Emacs", repelling users who _do
>not want_ to use Org inside Emacs. Maybe we can do better? Something
>with less accent on Emacs like "Org mode: your life in plain text"
I am not at all in favor of separating the 'Org Mode' name
58 matches
Mail list logo
