François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Once we get a working solution, the protocol remains the contact point.
> The server could be replaced using other languages, and new clients may
> be written for other editors (given they are extensible enough).  My
> goal is quickly getting something usable, so I selected the means that
> looked fastest to me, and that's how Python got in the picture.
>
> Is there any incentive for rewriting the server in Emacs Lisp?  For one,
> even if rather bearable, Emacs Lisp is not my preferred programming
> language.  Moreover, I consider a bit wrong having to rely on an editor
> for tasks wholly unrelated to editing.  Other people are free to have
> differing opinions, and do that rewrite, however.

It's not unlreated to editing, it's for collaborative editing! :)
Anyway, I understand and respect your point of view.

Moreover, it's nice of you to report on the mailing list, it helps to
keep on eye.

> If I really had more time and less pressure, I would likely have
> selected Node (JavaScript) to write the server instead of Python.  The
> choice of JSON within the ColOrg communication protocol is a way, for
> me, to leave that door opened.  One not so hidden dream is to bring Org
> mode a bit closer to Web browsers, if there are ways to do so.

-- 
Daimrod/Greg