[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Concrete suggestions to improve Org mode third-party integration ::

From: Ihor Radchenko
Subject: Re: Concrete suggestions to improve Org mode third-party integration :: an afterthought following Karl Voit's Orgdown proposal
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 18:03:52 +0800

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> 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 the impact it has on other projects.

Well. We have no direct control on the other projects. However, not
doing anything about the fact that other project keep appearing is
nothing but a call for more compatibility issues. If we do not clearly
specify relatively stable syntax or API, the other projects will
inevitably use internal implementation details and could be broken more
easily. For example, my recent patch to org-element broke org-roam
because org-roam relied on some undocumented behaviour of

> Having thought about this whole thread and other recent posts, I still
> feel any concern or reference to third party libraries etc is misguided
> or at the least, irrelevant. Most of the suggestions are fine and would
> be beneficial to org mode (such as clearly defined, consistent and
> documented syntax). The fact 3rd party libraries would also benefit from
> this is a bonus, but largely irrelevant.

You read "Org mode third-party integration" as benefit for third-party
libraries. I read it as benefit for Org from third-party libraries (as
opposed to no benefit and potential complains from third-party library

> I think a far more likely scenario is that we will see some/many of the
> ideas found in org-mode adapted and implemented in other editors, but
> without concern for compatibility. This has little to do with Emacs
> org-mode's documentation or org-modes specification, but rather is about
> how the ideas which are encapsulated in org-mode can be implemented in
> other systems and within the limitations of those systems. I'm actually
> surprised there hasn't been more org-mode clones already, but that could
> be a reflection of the amount of work it would take to create something
> which wasn't just another markdown module that renders a reasonable
> HTML/PDF version of it's contents. .

There are some "clones" like smos. However, org-mode is nothing but a
compilation of existing ideas. There are many other (mostly proprietary)
tools implementing parts of org's functionality: roam research, notion,
evernote, wunderlist, zettelkasten (app), hypothes.is,
ipython, Mathematica, taskwarrior, remember the milk, Doug Engelbart’s
ideas, etc. Even the damned Microsoft Word has built-in outliner (don't
ask how I know).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]