The author should have mentioned <a href="https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html" rel="nofollow">https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html</a> somewhere in the first paragraph, because he's basically building to that. Also, he says that there's no formal spec for OD1, which seems strange, because that's exactly the problem porting Org-Mode: no formal spec (yet). One would think that this is a step towards it or what?<p>> Orgdown1 can be summed up with 43 specific features.<p>What are they? Couldn't find anything but the page with the examples.<p>Maybe I missed it, but defining a standard involves actually defining it at some point, no? Like have a pdf maybe? I think I have seen more of the logo noise and the story behind it all and why we need the standard and why this and why that /RATHER than the actual standard/.<p>And well, the logo... I mean, WHY? It has a very specific meaning already, you know? Like of all the unused unicode symbols, that one, srsly?<p>> The preference for the level Orgdown1 name is:<p>> Orgdown1 … if you have the room for the long form<p>> ⧬1 … if you know how to enter UTF-8 characters (see next section)<p>> O↓1 … of you know how to enter the downward arrrow characters<p>> OD1 … this is the easiest to type short form<p>Bruh, would you just make up your mind on one damn thing?<p>I commend the intent, but I the whole thing begs for a cleanup.
With the rise of privacy-first, plain text tools for PKM I think this is an interesting project by Karl Voit. Seems like there's a growing list of tools supporting org[1], including my own BrainTool[2]<p>See also some further discussion here[3]<p>[1] <a href="https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool-Support.org" rel="nofollow">https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://braintoool.org" rel="nofollow">https://braintoool.org</a><p>[3] <a href="https://blog.tecosaur.com/tmio/2021-11-30-element.html#org-as-markup" rel="nofollow">https://blog.tecosaur.com/tmio/2021-11-30-element.html#org-a...</a>
I like this. Probably because a few years ago I switched to Emacs for a year and loved doing outlines in Org-mode; but everything else was cumbersome and I switched back to what use for most everything else, zim-wiki.<p>Now I have a specific thing that I'd like to use that org-mode outline flow for and, true story, right now it's looking like it's not going to happen because I don't think I have the time or patience to relearn Emacs; like I'm genuinely surprised at how long it's taking me to get back with it. Very much an "exact opposite of riding a bike." thing.
It's peculiar when a single person writes what they call a "standard": standard is something accepted and agreed to by multiple parties.<p>Writing a specification for previously only-defined-in-Emacs-code Org formatting is definitely commendable, and hopefully results in more standardisation of org-like apps.
Um. I'm an org user and I'd like pandoc to have better org support, but this really could have stopped after the xkcd 927 post. Why not just roll the web back to HTML3 and call it a day? Or use something latex inspired if you want more generalized markup? Org and markdown both suck for document preparation, since among other things they have no way to make tables with multiline text in the cells. Mediawiki markup does a much better job of that. It is already used in a huge publishing project (wikipedia) and has about everything you could want. That org mode has its own weird markup language is a bug, not a feature.