diff options
Diffstat (limited to '2021/talks/org-outside.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | 2021/talks/org-outside.md | 63 |
1 files changed, 61 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/2021/talks/org-outside.md b/2021/talks/org-outside.md index f6dd2e6c..e13948b0 100644 --- a/2021/talks/org-outside.md +++ b/2021/talks/org-outside.md @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ # The use of Org mode syntax outside of GNU/Emacs Karl Voit +[[!taglink CategoryOrgMode]] + [[!inline pages="internal(2021/info/org-outside-schedule)" raw="yes"]] With the rising interest in Org mode, the GNU/Emacs community gained @@ -37,7 +39,50 @@ information. # Discussion -IRC nick: publicvoit +Pad: + +- Q1: Great talk. I have been following your work on PIM for a while + (incl. a sneak read of your dissertation:-). Just curious, what + would you personally use Orgdown for? + - A: Oh, this would be a very loooong answer. I think you want to + visit: + - <https://karl-voit.at/tags/emacs/> and go to other pages + like <https://karl-voit.at/2019/09/25/using-orgmode/> + - Basically, Orgdown is already part of my workflows since + years: <https://github.com/novoid/lazyblorg/> or + <https://github.com/novoid/appendorgheading/> and much more. + +BBB: + +- Hi Karl. I was wondering, does the specification make any restrictions with regard to indentation levels or hard vs. soft line breaks? Do you have any type of test suites that an implementation can use to be "certified" as orgdown(1)? +- Are you worried about the different levels of orgdown leading to the same confusing situation we have with Markdown? +- I think the ability to indicate that some tools are compatible with org is fantastic! +- Less of a question and more of an idea: I feel like it might be clearer to have more "semantic" names for orgdown such as "basic" orgdown, "full" orgdown or something. Those names are not great, but I think that might make it easier to remember what is what. Thoughts? Was there a specific reason for choosing a numbering system? + - I like the Idea very much. There are some Mobile Markdown/Text Editors which shy away from support for org-mode. Maybe with orgdown support will be more widespread. + - Questioner: And we should really try to proliferate the orgdown compatibily +- Was the syntax specification based on commonmark in any way? +- I think my main concern when writing in org mode at the moment is that exporters aren't heavily test (I found the plain text export was accidentally mixing spaces and tabs in indentation). Do you have any thoughts on a specification of reference implementation for an export process? Or is that out-of-scope? +- although usb 3.2 2x2 is also not much clearer +- Oh, tags are not included in orgdown1 ... would this come in 2, or is there some workaround? +- I like the Idea very much. There are some Mobile Markdown/Text Editors which shy away from support for org-mode. Maybe with orgdown support will be more widespread. I did actually plan on making an org-roam focused app, for which I will definitely include the orgdown compatibility! Very excited about this + - You already answered this (tags). Sounds good to keep it simple at first. +- On the gitlab page it mentions that GH/GL have 95% support for orgdown: what is the 5 missing percent? +- Are you hoping for most of this discussion to happen through GitLab? +- Shame that gitlab does not have a github like discussion page yet +- Did you get any feedback from the Org mode maintainers? +- Just wanna preface this that I don't wanna complain about GitLab. Just also bringing up what a few folks on #emacsconf said as well. Sourcehut could be used, especially because of its mailing lists feature. The only other reason I could see that being interesting is that the head of Sourcehut is a large Gemini advocate as well. That could motivate more attention within the growing Gemini community for using Orgdown (outside of Emacs). +- Yeah, honestly, I'm excited to see what the rest of the Org community would want. Whatever platform, I'm excited to start contributing when I can. +- There seems to be a similar simplify-the-org-format approach in this recent neovim project: <https://github.com/nvim-neorg/neorg,> FYI. Might be worth looking to see if orgdown1 is compatible +- neorg seems to be an expanded org-mode syntax and is not compatible with orgmode + +BBB feedback: + +- I think no tags is a good idea, very implementation specific +- I think it's a fantastic idea, and the initial proposal is very good! +- i need to go, but thanks for introducing the idea, excited to see where it goes! +- Thanks for your proposal. I really hope it will work out. + +IRC: (nick: publicvoit) - is there a tree-sitter parser for orgdown already? :P - it seems to me that as org evolves, either orgdown eventually becomes incompatible with org or org is prevented from changing because it would break orgdown. I guess backcompat with existing org documents constrains org-mode this way already, though @@ -68,7 +113,21 @@ IRC nick: publicvoit - I don't really see a big issue with org-mode vs. org vs. orgWHATEVER though - there are major search and discovery issues with bare "org" - I tend to use "org syntax" at the moment, but it isn't catchy enough - + + +From [YouTube](www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLuTYkhFDQY&feature=em-comments): + +- Great idea! I’m not sure about the name though. To me it implies it has something syntactically to do with Markdown (which it doesn’t). In my view OrgMode markup is far more expressive than Markdown. It’s almost a new markup language in and of itself. So, how about OrgMark or Org Mode Markup Language aka OMML. + +Links and other notes: + +- The article from 2017 that started the whole discussion: "Org Mode + Is One of the Most Reasonable Markup Languages to Use for Text" + <https://karl-voit.at/2017/09/23/orgmode-as-markup-only/> +- Orgdown homepage: <https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown> +- Orgdown motivation article: + <https://karl-voit.at/2021/11/27/orgdown/> + # Outline - The term Org mode stands for different things |