Re: Thoughts on the standardization of Org

[Ken Mankoff]

On 2020-11-03 at 00:24 -08, David Rogers <davidandrewrogers@gmail.com> wrote...
> I disagree (in principle, not just because it would be difficult) with
> the idea of “expanding beyond Emacs”. Org-mode benefits greatly from
> current and future Emacs development, and asking to standardize “just
> the parts that are not Emacs” would cause Org-mode to lose that huge
> advantage. Org-mode relies heavily on the editor it’s built on, and if
> it ceased to rely on Emacs, it would be forced to rely on “nothing at
> all” instead. Not only that, but for Org-mode users being able to
> count on all of Emacs is a big part of why it works. This means
> separating Org-mode from Emacs is a “lose-lose” idea.

It seems like you have never used Orgzly or read on Org file on GitHub. Those 
are not ideas, but are actual current real-world win-win implementations of 
parts of Org outside of Emacs.

More of these would be better.

Everyone on this thread who says you can't separate Org from Emacs is correct 
that it is unreasonable to expect a 100 % bit-compatible and 
keystroke-compatible experience outside of Emacs. I don't think that level of 
re-implementation was what the OP was suggesting.

Again: GitHub. Orgzly. The conversation should move from "it can't be done" or 
"it isn't helpful" (why so much negativity on this thread?) to

+ What parts can be standardized and re-implemented outside of Emacs.
+ How do we define graceful failure for the other parts.
+ How do we support 3rd-party implementation in a way that benefits all of us.

  -k.