Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#2We do not need another competing standard here. Markdown is adequate and more importantly widely adopted and growing.
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#3We do not need another competing standard here. Markdown is adequate and more importantly widely adopted and growing.
org-mode's first release was in 2003, Markdown apparently in 2004. So not just "yet another standard"
And I don't think org-mode's babel features really exist in Markdown? It's more like having python notebooks right in there (any language really).
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#4markdown
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#5Org format is reasonably intuitive (so is markdown).
But org's real power comes from org-mode and the rest of Emacs. Being able to use it as PIM, as a quick way to write documents and export them, as a way to take notes, the keystrokes which are almost automatic for any Emacs user etc.
This is really why it shines. I don't see much value for it as just a markdown format outside Emacs.
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#6We do not need another competing standard here. Markdown is adequate and more importantly widely adopted and growing.
org-mode's first release was in 2003, Markdown apparently in 2004. So not just "yet another standard" And I don't think org-mode's babel features really exist in Markdown? It's more like having python notebooks right in there (any language really).
> And I don't think org-mode's babel features really exist in Markdown
I think the neatest part of org-babel is the source code block execution, & the various ways it supports for configuring output. This allows for org files to be "plaintext notebooks" (like jupyter in plaintext"). -- It's really surprising that this part is not more common.
More niche is the "babel" part of that: because the code blocks can take variables as inputs, and output values, this allows a polyglot notebook where values from e.g. Python get passed to R and plotted or so. -- Cute idea, although I've never found it too useful. The supported types are (unsurprisingly) limited, and the language support for code blocks is held together by duct tape.
(Even more niche is the noweb syntax for proper "literate programming". Which is mostly discussed about how awful it is to use in practice?)
Of course, org also has a long tail of neat features (like how each heading can have properties attached to it, as well as tags, and the task management that relates to this).
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#7If org more was as successful as markdown it would likely also have a lot of unstandardized additions.
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#8I've recently begun replacing Markdown with Gemini's .gmi/gemtext format. It is Markdown with fewer features. I appreciate the simplicity and it's tremendously easy for custom tools to parse.
It has no inline formatting, only 3 levels of ATX headers (without trailing #s), one level of bullet points using only asterisk and not dash to delimit, does not merge touching non-whitespace lines (thus expecting one line per paragraph), and supports only triple-backtick fenced preformatted text areas that just flip on and off.
Maybe the biggest change is that links are necessarily listed on their own line, proceeded by a `=>` and optionally followed by alt-text.
My gemtext parser is maybe 70 lines and it is arguably 95% of what one needs from Markdown.
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#9We do not need another competing standard here. Markdown is adequate and more importantly widely adopted and growing.
org-mode's first release was in 2003, Markdown apparently in 2004. So not just "yet another standard" And I don't think org-mode's babel features really exist in Markdown? It's more like having python notebooks right in there (any language really).
Babel features are kind of a moot point if you’re just talking about the syntax, which seems to be the purpose of the post. Most of the reason to use org mode is tied to emacs.
There’s no reason you couldn’t do something similar with markdown code blocks if someone were so inclined. But that’s tool dependent, not syntax.
I sort of agree with Karl’s point about there being too many standards of markdown, but I doubt org mode would have survived the same level of popularity without suffering the same fate.
It doesn’t help that there is no standard for org mode. You can only really use and take advantage of its power in emacs. It isn’t susceptible to lossy transformations because there’s only one real org mode editor.
Re: Org Mode syntax is one of the most reasonable markup languages for text (2017)
#10If org more was as successful as markdown it would likely also have a lot of unstandardized additions.
Though at its current state, it wouldn't need that much more, because it can already do tons of stuff that markdown cannot even start dreaming about.