From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: Sexp aganda entries broken?
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:49:04 +0100
Message-ID: <509EF600.8060403@gmx.de>
References: <50998D60.300@gmx.de> <509DA8C2.9000502@gmx.de>
	<87ehk1da0y.fsf@gmail.com> <509E8A5F.3080403@gmx.de>
	<87r4o1bf3y.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57192)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <simon.thum@gmx.de>) id 1TXKnc-0003bP-NK
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:49:19 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <simon.thum@gmx.de>) id 1TXKnZ-0002ys-L0
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:49:16 -0500
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:48422)
	by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <simon.thum@gmx.de>) id 1TXKnZ-0002xm-9h
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:49:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87r4o1bf3y.fsf@gmail.com>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Cc: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>, emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

On 11/10/2012 05:24 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Simon Thum<simon.thum@gmx.de>  writes:
>
>> I know that, but I deemed it useful to document it as a related but
>> separate mechanism on its own merit. Perhaps there could be a link to
>> 10.3.1 to make it clear that the notations differ in important ways?
>
> Since %%(...) syntax isn't a timestamp /per se/, there is no reason to
> refer to it in the timestamps part of the manual.
>
> Also, despite its own merit, it's an antiquated[fn:1] and irregular
> syntax, which doesn't deserve much publicity. It won't disappear, but
> it's better to circumvent its uses.

I see, it just seemed to me that org-contacts uses it for (seemingly) 
good reasons and there is no replacement or deprecation. Is there 
missing consensus on this syntax?

Cheers,

Simon

>
>
> Regards,
>
> [fn:1] Even the example given in "Calendar/Diary integration" section is
> outdated, as it relies on CATEGORY keyword to change category on the fly
> within the same section (see footnote in 10.4.1).
>