Karl,
thanks for all of this, and for writing and posting your blog entry
(words of caution for many).
my thoughts on your project are something like this:
- i think non-emacs tools to deal with org mode files is a Good Thing.
- for me, the main motivation is to allow *me* to share an org mode
On Wednesday, 1 Dec 2021 at 22:17, M. ‘quintus’ Gülker wrote:
> There is Git, of course, but unless you are a programmer, using Git is
> pretty much arcane. I was not yet successful to explain Git to MS Word
> users, who are actually happy with the change tracking tooling Word
> has built in. Thou
Karl Voit writes:
> Hi,
>
> I've summarized my current state of mind about the whole Orgdown
> fiasco into a blog article:
> https://karl-voit.at/2021/12/02/Orgdown-feedback/
>
> Don't worry, I tried to analyze my own faults as well so that others
> might be able to learn from this unfortunate
Thank you for writing all this down Karl. Thank you for your efforts and I
truly am sorry for everything you've been put through emotionally. I know
very well how a few particularly nasty comments can sap your energy as the
brain cycles on them over and over.
I hope you come out of this the strong
Hi,
I've summarized my current state of mind about the whole Orgdown
fiasco into a blog article:
https://karl-voit.at/2021/12/02/Orgdown-feedback/
Don't worry, I tried to analyze my own faults as well so that others
might be able to learn from this unfortunate situation.
--
get mail|git|SVN|pho
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 kibiti
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
