7 ms·
But that will take forever to make. Even for the key subsets, because org is huge. And if you use the spreadsheets, forget it. And some stuff, like babel (whic
by qwertyuiop924 10y ago
But that will take forever to make. Even for the key subsets, because org is huge. And if you use the spreadsheets, forget it.
And some stuff, like babel (which is probably important to devs), depends on other emacs packages...
- axlprose 10y agois it really that important for a non-emacs client to support 100% of org's features? You can still always open complicated org files in emacs if you really need to, but that shouldn't stop people from attempting to develop a lighter client alternative that's more convenient for the browser or mobile, for example. Even just using a subset of orgs features, it can still be significantly more powerful than just plain old markdown. Most of my org notes would be ok to edit with nothing more complicated than the labels+tags+checkboxes+tables features. Would be mildly annoying to manually update a few things here and there, but it'd still be far better than nothing.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago>is it really that important for a non-emacs client to support 100% of org's features? No. Even babel's not really necessary. But even implementing a broad subset might be hard. However, there is already rudimentary support for the org format outside org, so it may not be that bad.
- Semiapies 10y agoSomething along these lines is what I'm imagining. I'll have to poke at it.
- OvidNaso 10y agoWell, there are already a several org-mode parsers[0]. Some of them are quite good too. 0. http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tools/ http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tools/