From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Horn Subject: Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:24 -0400 Message-ID: <4CB9FC60.7020607@alum.mit.edu> References: <4CB74A73.2090202@gmx.de> <87k4lk57aj.fsf@noorul.maa.corp.collab.net> <20101015102958.9266699h4ij44e80@webmail.df.eu> <2673DFCA-F3F1-4155-966C-F4EA739AA79A@gmail.com> <20101015105247.90984aq253ya95k4@webmail.df.eu> <281FEC66-0C21-419B-BA2E-84D41BB3A0F3@gmail.com> Reply-To: rjhorn@alum.mit.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45442 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P7COQ-0003p5-AN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P7COP-0002So-78 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:10 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]:63894) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P7COP-0002Sh-5F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:09 -0400 Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6301F086 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (panix1.panix.com [166.84.1.1]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A84F321FD for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <281FEC66-0C21-419B-BA2E-84D41BB3A0F3@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 10/16/2010 01:32 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote: > >> Karl Maihofer gmx.de> writes: >>> Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags etc. >>> So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is >>> possible for agenda commands. >> >> I think that a way to define logical groups of tags (or even a >> hierarchy of tags >> -- say with a subtree of tag names?) would be a very useful addition. > > I can see that this could be useful - but the code is > not in any way prepared to do this, so this would be pretty hard > to implement. > Is it worth exploring use of the properties drawer? The tags in org are a fairly simple and thus limited structure. The properties drawer can have a lot more structure with a more controlled environment. R Horn