Re: [O] are super-hidden technical blocks required?

[Jonathan Leech-Pepin]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Ivy Foster <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2012, at 11:26 am +0900, Torsten Wagner wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
>> [Because of the problems of syncing and interaction with
>> third-party programs] I was wondering if it would be time
>> to switch org-mode from text to some sort of XML.
>
> I mostly lurk on this list, but reading the preceding
> proposal I figured I should note that, as a user, one of the
> key features of org-mode is its lovely simplicity of syntax
> and interface. If I really wanted to keep my files in
> hand-hacked or generated XML, I could, but I'd much rather
> keep 'em in, well, org (-: .
>
>> Would it help [alleviate the problem of property-blocks
>> containing mixed user & technical data] to introduce a
>> technical-property block which only contains information
>> intend to be used by other programs and parsers?
>
> Sounds like an interesting idea.

It sounds interesting however my first instinct is that it will not be
easy to make the distinctions.  Is :ID: meant as technical-data or
user-data?  Columns and Archive properties are more 'technical', yet
they are for use by Org.  With the new exporter/org-element you
retrieve the properties using =org-element-property= so the unneeded
properties don't need to be parsed by the exporters.

>> This blocks could be hidden under all normal means unlike
>> really someone want to see them and hit a special
>> key-combo.
>
> Hmm, personally I'd rather have it visible but clearly
> labeled. Transparency is nearly always a good thing.
>

Agreed.  If it's there I'd want to know it was there.  the :ARCHIVED:
tag does well enough at keeping content hidden for that purpose, but
you still see that it is present.  (So just don't open the drawer
unless you need it.)

> It's great that you're thinking about this stuff, and I'll
> look forward to seeing where these ideas go.
>
> Cheers,
> iff
>

Regards,
Jon