No, but looking at it now, it's definitely an inspiring model for how to do something like this right.
I'd say the goals of Margin are similar, but more focused on thought that is specifically hierarchical in nature -- whereas ArchieML seems to be more focused on structuring text in key:value pairs (if I'm understanding it correctly).
The hope with Margin is that lots of people already store their notes, to do lists, and random thoughts in a format that might already be (or almost be) valid Margin. It's intentionally non-technical, and its syntax should make sense to those who don't know or care what Margin is.
wow, the syntax of ArchieML seems a lot harder to learn that something with a more regular syntax like, say, YAML. I wonder if the NYT still uses that. Also having no feedback while you write on a gdoc seems like a recipe for a disaster (maybe they had or have some sort of gdoc plugin to give syntax feedback?)
Comments
Are you familiar with ArchieML?
No, but looking at it now, it's definitely an inspiring model for how to do something like this right.
I'd say the goals of Margin are similar, but more focused on thought that is specifically hierarchical in nature -- whereas ArchieML seems to be more focused on structuring text in key:value pairs (if I'm understanding it correctly).
The hope with Margin is that lots of people already store their notes, to do lists, and random thoughts in a format that might already be (or almost be) valid Margin. It's intentionally non-technical, and its syntax should make sense to those who don't know or care what Margin is.
wow, the syntax of ArchieML seems a lot harder to learn that something with a more regular syntax like, say, YAML. I wonder if the NYT still uses that. Also having no feedback while you write on a gdoc seems like a recipe for a disaster (maybe they had or have some sort of gdoc plugin to give syntax feedback?)
It’s still used in many news orgs. The writers mostly don’t touch the markup, so it works out.