On 02/11/2020 00:10, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net> writes: >> Maybe the standardization should cover only the "static" parts of Org >> (ie no table formulas, no babel, no agenda, no exporters, etc). However, >> in this case, what is left is little more of a markup language with an >> editor that allows sections folding. You can have this on top of pretty >> much any markup language using Emacs' outline-minor-mode. > > It could become stronger competition for asciidoc by being available in > more places.
Why does Org need to compete with asciidoc? I don't see any advantage in fighting with anyone for market share. > Having an acceptance criterion for “supports basic org-mode > presentation” and “can edit org-files without breaking editing in > org-mode” could help adoption. Acceptance criterion for what? Adoption of what? It seems to me that some see a the adoption of a simplified version of the Org markup language outside Emacs and the org-mode implementation as something desirable. However, I don't see what the Org community would gain from that. > That would be the only part I’d really expect from standardization: > There would be a clear-cut point when a tool could claim compatibility > with org level N or by components (i.e. basic presentation, code-blocks, > …). > > Having org-files parsed as html on a VCS-infopage is pretty nice. As explained many times now, you don't a formal specification for this: the specification is the org-mode implementation itself. However, I will not discourage anyone from working on some form of standardization, other than pointing out that IMO it is an exercise with very limited usefulness, impact and future. Cheers, Dan
