Re: [PATCH] doc/org-manual.org (Summary): Clarify the Org markup is human-readable

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.online> [2024-01-02 08:39]:
> Aloha Ihor,
> 
> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:
> 
> > @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ ** Summary
> >  It relies on a lightweight plain-text markup language used in  files
> >  with the =.org= extension.
> >   +Org files can be viewed using any text editor.  You can read and
> > +understand raw Org markup with a naked eye.  Although authoring Org
> > +files is best-supported inside Emacs.
> > +
> >  As an authoring tool, Org helps you write structured documents  and
> >  provides exporting facilities. Org files can also be used for  literate
> >  programming and reproducible research.  As a TODO lists  manager, Org
> > -- 
> > 2.42.0
> 
> How about this, assuming lightweight is equivalent to readable and easy to
> understand?
> 
> It relies on a readable and easy to understand plain-text markup language
> saved to files with the =.org= extension. Authoring Org files is best
> supported by Emacs, but you can view and change them with any text editor.
> As an authoring tool ...

In my opinion, it's not that Org was intentionally designed to be
"lightweight markup readable for humans"; rather, it was maintained in
a manner that focused on preserving its readability and prevented it
from evolving into something less comprehensible.

It's primary use was for Emacs users to make notes, TODO tasks,
etc. It is secondary that it became leightweight markup language that
can export to various documents.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/