> On Nov 29, 2021, at 8:24, Jean-Christophe Helary
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:57, Tom Gillespie wrote:
>>
>> PS Another brainstormed name: Orgsyn?
>
> Org Agnostic Syntax Modules → OrgASM
I understand that the issue is quite moot now (and I'm sorry for my silly
proposal),
Am Dienstag, dem 30. November 2021 schrieb Karl Voit:
> One of the next things I do have on my list is to try out crdt as
> I've learned at EmacsConf21 that it is mature enough to be used in
> practice.
>
> If that holds true, we can start dreaming of having a Etherpad-like
> session from our GN
Tom Gillespie writes:
> Karl,
>The exact naming of a thing is nearly always the most contentious
> step in trying to promulgate it. In my own field we can easily get all
> parties to agree on a definition, but they refuse to budge on a name.
> As others have said, I wouldn't worry about kib
Karl,
The exact naming of a thing is nearly always the most contentious
step in trying to promulgate it. In my own field we can easily get all
parties to agree on a definition, but they refuse to budge on a name.
As others have said, I wouldn't worry about kibitizing over the name.
I would howe
um, or just "assuming too much bias"? :]
again i don't think you are really doing these things by just
proposing a bunch of ideas about markup languages. not everybody
knows all languages and you'll get substantive corrective feedback.
On 11/30/21, Samuel Wales wrote:
> if you will forgive one
if you will forgive one more bikeshed answer, what about this?
- reduced org
- reduced org, version 1
and maybe
- .rorg extension [if and only if needed to guarantee reduction]
as for why you got bikeshed answers, maybe the subject header of this
thread might have been part of it?
idk.
===
a
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 17:46, Karl Voit wrote:
>
> I chose an in-between approach: defining only a minimal set (name,
> common structure/idea/documentation, Orgdown1, providing a
> collaborative home on GitLab) and hope for a project community that
> will take over (or at least support) from there
Karl Voit writes:
> * M ‘quintus’ Gülker wrote:
>> Am Montag, dem 29. November 2021 schrieb Karl Voit:
>>> It seems to be the case that the name "Orgdown" is the reason why
>>> the Org-mode community does not support the idea of an
>>> implementation-agnostic definition of the syntax. Which is
Hi,
* M ‘quintus’ Gülker wrote:
>
> Am Montag, dem 29. November 2021 schrieb Karl Voit:
>> It seems to be the case that the name "Orgdown" is the reason why
>> the Org-mode community does not support the idea of an
>> implementation-agnostic definition of the syntax. Which is ... kinda
>> funny
On 2021-11-29, at 19:27, M. ‘quintus’ Gülker wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 29. November 2021 schrieb Karl Voit:
>> It seems to be the case that the name "Orgdown" is the reason why
>> the Org-mode community does not support the idea of an
>> implementation-agnostic definition of the syntax. Which is
Am Montag, dem 29. November 2021 schrieb Karl Voit:
> It seems to be the case that the name "Orgdown" is the reason why
> the Org-mode community does not support the idea of an
> implementation-agnostic definition of the syntax. Which is ... kinda
> funny if you think about it.
>
> Well if the pr
I don't have very thoughtful comments but I'll just say that I really do
also like the idea of a formal syntax; that a staged standard seems to make
sense to me, though I'm ignorant about how syntaxes are normally defined
and managed; and am generally not super enthusiastic about the particular
na
Hi Tim,
* Tim Cross wrote:
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> while I can appreciate the point you are making, I'm doubtful your
> suggestion will gain the traction necessary to work.
You might be right. Only time will tell. ;-)
> To me, it feels a little like the frequent posts from RMS in the
> emacs-devel li
On 2021-11-29 03:33, Michael Ashton wrote:
On Nov 28, 2021, at 6:22 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
On 11/28/2021 11:46 AM, Karl Voit wrote:
At this year's EmascsConf, I had a 12 minute video where I explain
why
we do need a different name for the syntax of Org-mode in contrast to
the Elisp implementat
On 29/11/2021 09:33, Michael Ashton wrote:
On 11/28/2021 11:46 AM, Karl Voit wrote:
At this year's EmascsConf, I had a 12 minute video where I explain why
we do need a different name for the syntax of Org-mode in contrast to
the Elisp implementation of GNU/Emacs Org-mode.
I would like you to r
On 2021-11-29, at 13:18, Juan Manuel Macías wrote:
> Marcin Borkowski writes:
>
>> Quite the contrary. The amount of confusion between TeX (engine)/TeX
>> (language)/TeX (distro)/TeX-aware text editor/LaTeX (whatever) among
>> novice/casual users has always been terrible.
>
> It's natural when
Marcin Borkowski writes:
> Quite the contrary. The amount of confusion between TeX (engine)/TeX
> (language)/TeX (distro)/TeX-aware text editor/LaTeX (whatever) among
> novice/casual users has always been terrible.
It's natural when those novice/casual users approach something that is
new to the
Juan Manuel Macías writes:
> Joost Kremers writes:
>
>> Why not just use the term "Org markup"? It's descriptive and should be
>> understandable to people familiar with the concept of markup languages.
>
> This. 'Org markup language' and 'Org Syntax' are obvious and natural
> terms that can eas
On 2021-11-28, at 23:25, Juan Manuel Macías wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [...] For example: there is TeX (the typographic engine) and TeX
> (the programming language for that engine). And there has never been any
> conflict.
Quite the contrary. The amount of confusion between TeX (engine)/TeX
(language)/
Or OrgMark. Simple, please no levels to show the amount of adherence to the
spec. OrgMark would symbolize the "markings" or syntax of Org-mode, and not
be close enough to Mark(down) to where people would think, like I did, that
this was Org-mode power given to a subset of Markdown to help, say,
Obs
Joost Kremers writes:
> Why not just use the term "Org markup"? It's descriptive and should be
> understandable to people familiar with the concept of markup languages.
This. 'Org markup language' and 'Org Syntax' are obvious and natural
terms that can easily be inferred from the Org manual. Hon
> On Nov 28, 2021, at 6:22 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
>
> On 11/28/2021 11:46 AM, Karl Voit wrote:
>> At this year's EmascsConf, I had a 12 minute video where I explain why
>> we do need a different name for the syntax of Org-mode in contrast to
>> the Elisp implementation of GNU/Emacs Org-mode.
>>
On 11/28/2021 11:46 AM, Karl Voit wrote:
At this year's EmascsConf, I had a 12 minute video where I explain why
we do need a different name for the syntax of Org-mode in contrast to
the Elisp implementation of GNU/Emacs Org-mode.
I would like you to read my rationale and motivate you to use the
Agree with Joost. If I remember correctly, the "down" part of markdown was
meant as a play on words to indicate that, unlike a proper markup language,
markdown has a direction and a value system but no defined standard. Since
org is definitely not that why must the waters? Just go for clarity.
On
On Sun, Nov 28 2021, Tom Gillespie wrote:
> PS Another brainstormed name: Orgsyn?
Why not just use the term "Org markup"? It's descriptive and should be
understandable to people familiar with the concept of markup languages.
--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments
> On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:57, Tom Gillespie wrote:
>
> PS Another brainstormed name: Orgsyn?
Org Agnostic Syntax Modules → OrgASM
--
Jean-Christophe Helary @brandelune
https://mac4translators.blogspot.com
https://sr.ht/~brandelune/omegat-as-a-book/
> I believe (IMHO) that it does not make much sense to separately name the
> Org Mode syntax (as a markup language). That would only generate
> confusion among users.
This is unfortunately not the case. Conflating Org mode which is an Emacs
major mode with Org syntax is a major communication barri
Karl Voit writes:
> Hi Org-mode community,
>
> At this year's EmascsConf, I had a 12 minute video where I explain why
> we do need a different name for the syntax of Org-mode in contrast to
> the Elisp implementation of GNU/Emacs Org-mode.
>
> I would like you to read my rationale and motivate
Hi,
I believe (IMHO) that it does not make much sense to separately name the
Org Mode syntax (as a markup language). That would only generate
confusion among users. Furthermore, 'Org Mode', as a whole, is already a
sufficiently recognized and popular name, even outside the GNU Emacs
community. A s
I had jokingly suggested "orgup" to have a more positive feeling (up
instead of down) than markdown. I'm not sure orgdown will be any more
confusing than some other name. It could imply a version of the org
syntax that uses markdown surface syntax, but it seems that that would
probably be called or
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 4:34 PM Jean-Christophe Helary
wrote:
>
> Considering the total incompatibility between markdown and org-mode it does
> not seem to me that ’orgdown’ is a useful name. It will only confuse people
> and generate useless comments and counter-comments wherever org-mode synta
Considering the total incompatibility between markdown and org-mode it does not
seem to me that ’orgdown’ is a useful name. It will only confuse people and
generate useless comments and counter-comments wherever org-mode syntax is
mentioned.
Org-mode and its syntax bring users functions that ar
Hi Org-mode community,
At this year's EmascsConf, I had a 12 minute video where I explain why
we do need a different name for the syntax of Org-mode in contrast to
the Elisp implementation of GNU/Emacs Org-mode.
I would like you to read my rationale and motivate you to use the term
"Orgdown" for
33 matches
Mail list logo
