You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This suggestion is a suggestion to alter the spec to provide a new ground rule for Norg syntax moving forward. Sometimes it's really difficult to dispute new syntax ideas because of the features they provide. One ground rule that is very important (and prevalent throughout the whole syntax today, intentionally or not) is that Norg syntax does not do any typesetting, ever.
All of Norg gives structure to the document, but never specifies what this content should look like.
Altering the "looks" of Norg (when exported or rendered) is up to:
The tool that is consuming Norg as a file format.
The user, when looks are altered through attributes (although the tool consuming Norg has the right to ignore those attributes).
Thus, any new syntax that is proposed must not attempt to implement typesetting features.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This suggestion is a suggestion to alter the spec to provide a new ground rule for Norg syntax moving forward. Sometimes it's really difficult to dispute new syntax ideas because of the features they provide. One ground rule that is very important (and prevalent throughout the whole syntax today, intentionally or not) is that Norg syntax does not do any typesetting, ever.
All of Norg gives structure to the document, but never specifies what this content should look like.
Altering the "looks" of Norg (when exported or rendered) is up to:
Thus, any new syntax that is proposed must not attempt to implement typesetting features.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: