Migration to Obsidian

[hmijail]

@Zyrohex

What ever gave you the impression that Logseq would conform to CommonMark specifications?

I never mentioned CommonMark, so no idea where that comes from.

@Zyrohex

but if its a requirement for you then why not just move to Obsidian and be done?

As I said, that’s what I did.

@Zyrohex

Do you have a link where this was advertised?

logseq.com? Like, front page?

It’s great that transclusion works for you. As I already said, I bet there are other use cases different to mine.

[Zyrohex]

@hmijail

logseq.com? Like, front page?

It’s great that transclusion works for you. As I already said, I bet there are other use cases different to mine.

I’m not seeing anything on the front page that says it holds itself to CommonMark specifications, or any specifications for that matter, so not really sure where you are getting the piece that it was advertised this way? The only piece that mentions markdown is = " Markdown files: Open your notes in other tools".

@hmijail

I never mentioned CommonMark, so no idea where that comes from.

I mention CommonMark because if something tries to conform to standard markdown, CommonMark is the common specification = https://commonmark.org/. The other option is the Github standard = GitHub Flavored Markdown Spec.

For instance Obsidian has documented on their site that they uphold maximum compatibility between both standards (source). This standardization is what I am guessing you are looking for and why I mentioned it. If that’s not correct, feel free to elaborate.

[hmijail]

@Zyrohex

I’m not seeing anything on the front page that says it holds itself to CommonMark specifications

Yeah, and I don’t see why keep you referring to specs at all.

THE reason why Markdown is useful is because it makes for good plaintext with light structure. That was its origin, that keeps being its use case (even for CommonMark), and that’s the only thing I expect from a program that claims Markdown compatibility.
I’d say it’s a pretty low bar! Certainly not higher than what the front page says.

Wouldn’t you agree?

[Zyrohex]

@hmijail

Yeah, and I don’t see why keep you referring to specs at all.

Some of your comments mentioned “standard mark” and you referred to its readability while comparing it to Obsidian. Obsidian aims for maximum compatibility with those two specifications, leading me to believe that this was the specification you were referring to, even if you weren’t aware of it.

@hmijail

THE reason why Markdown is useful is because it makes for good plaintext with light structure. That was its origin, that keeps being its use case (even for CommonMark), and that’s the only thing I expect from a program that claims Markdown compatibility.
I’d say it’s a pretty low bar! Certainly not higher than what the front page says.

It does yes. However logseq again did not advertise that it would stick to a certain standard of formatting like you’d find with CommonMark. All what they have said is that files will be stored in Markdown files so that you can open them in other tools, that piece is accurate and true to this day. That statement does not say anything about readability or formatting of the file. Only that you would be able to edit the files in other tools, meaning your data is not locked away in a proprietary file format that only logseq can read, and if you did try to read it all what you would see is garbled characters.

[hmijail]

@Zyrohex

Some of your comments mentioned “standard mark” and you referred to its readability while comparing it to Obsidian. Obsidian aims for maximum compatibility with those two specifications, leading me to believe that this was the specification you were referring to, even if you weren’t aware of it.

So if you double check, you’ll see that it wasn’t me who introduced the word “standard” either - I just quoted others. On the contrary, what I did say is:

@hmijail

As we know, Markdown is just plain text with conveniently light formatting and without an exact definition,

@Zyrohex

All what they have said is that files will be stored in Markdown files so that you can open them in other tools, that piece is accurate and true to this day. That statement does not say anything about readability or formatting of the file. Only that you would be able to edit the files in other tools, meaning your data is not locked away in a proprietary file format that only logseq can read, and if you did try to read it all what you would see is garbled characters.

Wow… “Lack of garbled characters” is a new feature then. So yeah, my bar wasn’t low enough. You went ahead and dug a hole.

If I cared for Markdown as storage, I’d be clamoring for devs to publicly disavow this kind of weasel-word-lawyerized reading.
Glad it’s not longer my case. With friends like this…

[Zyrohex]

@hmijail

So if you double check, you’ll see that it wasn’t me who introduced the word “standard” either - I just quoted others. On the contrary, what I did say is:

Maybe not, but it was your argument point in several of your replies.

@hmijail

Wow… “Lack of garbled characters” is a new feature then. So yeah, my bar wasn’t low enough. You went ahead and dug a hole.

No, you claimed they “advertised” what you were talking about before, which was not true. That’s what I was clearing up is that what you thought was “advertised” was not actually advertised, and you read it wrong. That is all. Have a good day.

[alex0]

@hmijail

2 things here. If Logseq uses Markdown as storage, why have an “export to Markdown” function at all? It’s a hint that the whole thing is misguided.

Logseq uses valid Markdown files as storage i.e. you can render it to HTML, PDF etc with other tools. Those won’t “understand” Logseq special syntax though, like wikilinks, TODOs, properties etc.

Markdown file storage is useful because you can edit files with any text editor, use them with other Markdown apps like Obsidian or Foam/Loam, version them with Git, sync and backup with file-based solutions, you can programmatically refactor your graph, for example with find&replace and so on.

The export to Markdown dialog is useful because:

• you can export starting from any block and stop at a given indentation level, this is useful for me because:
  • I store multiple pieces of Markdown that I want to share in the same page according to how I want to structure my graph and Graph View
  • I can export content with different levels of detail and keep deeper blocks private
• you can remove [[ ]] and turn wikilinks in normal words, since wikilinks are not standard Markdown (aka Commonmark)
• you can remove #hashtags entirely, to use them for private management
• you can add a new line after each block for compatibility with certain Markdown implementations
• you can remove indentation and produce normal Markdown documents

With the export feature this:

- # Title
  - ## Subtitle
    - [[Lorem]] ipsum [[dolor]] sit amet. #example
      note:: a note to myself
      source:: https://...
    - ((3774726a-1679-4040-93a5-d80797e065f2))

can become this:

# Title

## Subtitle

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

making Logseq a preprocessor for Markdown: it can extract standard Markdown out of a non-linear structure by resolving block & page references and removing the syntax defining the structure.

@hmijail

But worse, have you tried comparing the “exported” Markdown with the “native Logseq” Markdown? I did! It’s barely changed from Logseq’s normal Markdown; it still keeps all of the metadata that needs to be cleaned up manually, so again calling that “standard Markdown” is misleading at best.

Evidently you missed the options at the bottom of Export dialog.

@hmijail

FWIW, Obsidian doesn’t “export to Markdown” - why would it?
Sorry that I keep referring to it, but seems to me that it’s the only way to keep the discussion grounded, instead of going into abstract aspirations of “exporting to standard markdown”. Here’s this other project which not only talks the talk, but walks the walk!

Even though Obsidian is not a Markdown preprocessor like Logseq but more a Markdown editor, it should support Markdown export since Obsidian, just like Logseq, uses custom Markdown extensions like wikilinks and block references.

@hmijail

But Obsidian does present you with the same! The only thing it doesn’t do is the “you can edit” part. - you need to click on it first. And hey, I can see how that would be convenient, of course! But I don’t see how it is a justification for failing to have the real Markdown that was advertised.

Being able to edit “transcluded” blocks is just the most evident use of Logseq approach (turning files into a structured DB you can query with bi-directional sync). Logseq can provide a lot of each features because it “understands” the content of files and the content of blocks. And plugins (and the advanced user manually too) have access to that structured content. In Obsidian you have the DataView plugin, well, it can’t support editing query results because Obsidian doesn’t use Logseq’s approach.

@hmijail

I’ll insist: Obsidian advertises Markdown storage, and they push it in amazing ways, but stay true to what was advertised. Whether md storage is a good idea is another thing, but they are keeping a promise. I can respect that.

Meanwhile, Logseq makes the same promise, and then fails at it in multiple compounding ways.

Obsidian produces Commonmark Markdown files with its own extensions. Logseq does the same but these Markdown files are Markdown indented lists. If you want to produce common Markdown files, Logseq is an excellent Markdown preprocessor thanks to the Export feature, as I explained above.

@hmijail

Logseq deals with that by hiding all its stuff in the Markdown and hoping that you won’t look at it. It gives you a ton of functionality, but it fundamentally breaks the Markdown promise. How to fix that? Move to a DB, decouple it from Markdown. So it’s good that the devs decided to move to a DB. Hopefully then that will improve everything, from APIs to reliability to actual Markdown export.

Logseq uses an in-memory DB called DataScript and Markdown files as permanent storage. Now they are making Logseq save the DataScript DB on the disk using SQLite, then they will make this permanent DB synced with Markdown files, providing the same experience we have now but without all the issue that comes from syncing DataScript with Markdown files directly.

@hmijail

But until then, just like Obsidian deserves praise for sticking to the Markdown promise, Logseq deserves to be called out for all the ways it fails at that. Removing the promise is the first step

No, you didn’t understand Logseq and you could have just asked here like many other users do. Instead you have the presumption of having understood everything and you come here to criticize.

Now I hope everything is clear. Peace.

[hmijail]

@alex0

Logseq uses valid Markdown files as storage

Please, @Zyrohex, explain to @alex0 that without a specification the word “valid” makes no sense. (I ask you because you’re the one who got focused on specs)

It’s silly to die on this particular hill for a format as freewheeling as Markdown. Even more when Logseq fills the format with garbage like it does. But here we are.

@alex0

Evidently you missed the options at the bottom of Export dialog.

The graph export dialog has no options.
I hope you don’t mean that I should use the page export dialog, page by page.
Because that would mean you’re out of your mind.

[alex0]

@hmijail

Please, @Zyrohex, explain to @alex0 that without a specification the word “valid” makes no sense. (I ask you because you’re the one who got focused on specs)

The spec is called Commonmark and it is what almost everything refers to as standard Markdown, including Obsidian. This forum, Discourse, uses Commonmark since the main developer of Discourse is also one of the three authors of Commonmark spec.

@hmijail

The graph export dialog has no options.
I hope you don’t mean that I should use the page export dialog, page by page.
Because that would mean you’re out of your mind.

Right click on the bullet point of any block > Copy / Export as. This allows you to use Logseq as a Markdown preprocessor. Migration is another use case I didn’t explore yet.

[hmijail]

@alex0

The spec is called Commonmark and it is what almost everything refers to as standard Markdown, including Obsidian. This forum, Discourse, uses Commonmark since the main developer of Discourse is also one of the three authors of Commonmark spec.

That’s great, but I thought we were talking about Logseq? What has this to do with anything?

I don’t even know why I’m discussing here anymore. Good luck everyone!

[Zyrohex]

@hmijail

Please, @Zyrohex, explain to @alex0 that without a specification the word “valid” makes no sense. (I ask you because you’re the one who got focused on specs)

What Alex says is true, Logseq does follow most syntax rules for CommonMark, that is what Logseq have documented which I provided a link to previously. I think you just have a misunderstanding and you’ve made some assumptions, such as what you thought was advertised, which ended up not being accurate.