Re: [ELPA] New package: SachaC-news

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 15:36:40 -0600
> Cc: rms@gnu.org, cnngimenez@disroot.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>
> 
> On 12/31/23 13:32, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 12:13:24 -0600
> >> Cc: cnngimenez@disroot.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> From: Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>
> >>
> >>> Org format is text with its own kind of markup -- it is not plain text.
> >>
> >> Many users would disagree.
> > 
> > How can users disagree with something that is a plain fact?
> 
> A fact?  Org's own web site, as I said, proclaims, "Your life in plain 
> text."  It would seem there is at least room for interpretation.

If there's room for interpretation, why do you object to Richard's
(and mine)?

> > Do you deny that Org files have their own specialized markup?  Because
> > that's all that Richard said above.  If you do agree that Org has its
> > own markup, then where are you going with your objections and
> > arguments?
> 
> He said that the package in question should have the output of one of 
> its commands changed to not output Org syntax.  With Org being 
> "essentially" plain text, and intended to be readable as plain-text in 
> any software, without any special fontification, that raises the 
> question of what would be changed to qualify the command's output as 
> non-Org "plain text", and what the benefit would be to the user.

I think you are splitting hair, because it's crystal clear what
Richard asked for: produce output without Org's markup.  Saying that
the request is already satisfied based on the differences in
interpreting what is and isn't "plain text' is not useful here, since,
given the reference to Org markup, it should be clear what Richard
meant when he said "plain text" in this case.