The author should have mentioned https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html somewhere in the first paragraph, bec

The author should have mentioned https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html 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? > Orgdown1 can be summed up with 43 specific features. What are they? Couldn't find anything but the page with the examples. 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/. 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? > The preference for the level Orgdown1 name is: > Orgdown1 … if you have the room for the long form > ⧬1 … if you know how to enter UTF-8 characters (see next section) > O↓1 … of you know how to enter the downward arrrow characters > OD1 … this is the easiest to type short form Bruh, would you just make up your mind on one damn thing? I commend the intent, but I the whole thing begs for a cleanup.