Re: Thoughts on the standardization of Org

[TEC]

Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:

> Acceptance criterion for what? Adoption of what?
>
> It seems to me that some see a the adoption of a simplified 
> version of
> the Org markup language outside Emacs and the org-mode 
> implementation as
> something desirable. However, I don't see what the Org community 
> would
> gain from that.
>
> [...]
>
> As explained many times now, you don't a formal specification 
> for this:
> the specification is the org-mode implementation itself.
>
> However, I will not discourage anyone from working on some form 
> of
> standardization, other than pointing out that IMO it is an 
> exercise with
> very limited usefulness, impact and future.

I think there are absolutely some benefits for Org users. I am
personally interested in registering Org as an IANA MIME type.

What will this do? Well, for starters I'd like to be able to 
attach org
files without the type being recognised as
"application/vnd.lotus-organizer" 🤢.

test.org
Description: Lotus Organizer

I also think it's to our benefit that non-Emacsers become more
comfortable with seeing an org file --- as I see it that improves 
our
chances that we can directly share Org files with them, which they 
might
be comfortable editing and sending back for example, or that a 
generic
tool might think to support Org files.

So I'd like to assure you that my interest in improving 
recognition and
support for Org is motivated by selfish reasons 😛 which just so 
happen
to potentially benefit non-Emacsers.

I hope that clarifies my view of the proposal,

Timothy