Re: Shower thought: submit an IETF RFC to register Org as a MIME type

[TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> You register once and for all?  Is there some red tape involved 
> in
> maintaining the registration?

Assuming I haven't misread/missed anything, the only thing that we 
might
cause a change is if the specification changes - but since it 
looks like
we can just link to our specification we probably wouldn't even 
need to
do that.

>> For that, I think a formal syntax specification would be
>> needed. Perhaps https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html 
>> will
>> do? It looks complete.
>
> We should first read 
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html
> and carefully check that it is up to date and still accurate, 
> then
> make it more user oriented (for now it more developers 
> oriented.)

I see. Would there be someone well suited to check that everything 
is
accurate? I wouldn't feel confident auditing the whole document by
myself.

> I'm ready to work on this before the end of the year.

Marvellous!

>> Perhaps it could be worth putting the syntax spec under the 
>> main
>> site as something like orgmode.org/syntax-spec.html.
>
> I would not go into this direction: as you know, I'd like the 
> home
> of orgmode.org to be just one page (index.org/html) and move 
> other
> pages to Worg.  So let's not move org-syntax.org to the website,
> it is good as a worg resource.

Mmm. My thoughts on having lots on Worg haven't changed, I was 
just
thinking it might seem more 'official' / better if the page were 
nearer
to the site root.

>> I've also been considering spinning off the manual into a bit 
>> of a
>> specification document (e.g. less of a guide / how-to, stripped 
>> down
>> to just the bare information), so perhaps
>> orgmode.org/specification.html#syntax ? I'd really like some 
>> second
>> opinions.
>
> This would be too many docs to maintain.

This was partly motivated from it sometimes being annoying to just
check what forms an element can take and not finding it easy to 
see in
the manual.

Yea, maintaining /another/ file doesn't seem like a good idea 
though...

>>> Is anyone willing to move forward with this registration?
>>
>> In about two months, I am.
>
> Okay, thanks!  Let's work on stabilizing Org syntax and 
> reconsider the
> registration idea then.  I will also ping future maintainers on 
> this.

Sounds good! Thanks for being open to the idea :)

All the best,

Timothy.