From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: property searches for #+CATEGORY Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: <871wb2p2f9.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <20071107111730.GH13544@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipklz-0006Jp-Oz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:16:47 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipklw-0006Jd-AV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:16:46 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipklw-0006Ja-5w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:16:44 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ipkkp-00027d-Gl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:16:43 -0500 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so2870791wah for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:15:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20071107111730.GH13544@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> (Adam Spiers's message of "Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:17:30 +0000") 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: org-mode mailing list Adam Spiers writes: > I have several personal .org files, and several work-related ones too. > In each personal file, I have a line: > > #+CATEGORY: personal > > and in each work-related file, I have a line: > > #+CATEGORY: work > > I would like to be able to bind agenda custom commands to do tag > searches which are narrowed to one of these categories, e.g. "show me > all personal priority #A tasks". Such a search needs to span *all* > agenda files, therefore the standard per-buffer narrowing provided by > the '<' binding in the *Agenda Commands* buffer is insufficient. > > Would it make sense to include CATEGORY as a special property? After > all, pretty much all other per-task meta-data ("TODO", "PRIORITY" > etc.) are already available via the property interface, and this way, > I could easily achieve what I need with tag searches such as > > CATEGORY="personal"+PRIORITY="A" I understand now. I think it would be clearer to distinguish between categorizing files and categorizing tasks. In a sense, using #+CATEGORY across several files (as you do) is more a way to group these files under the same ombrella (conveniently called "category"), rather than to group all tasks below each #+CATEGORY in the same category. Let me say it with other words: if several files share the same #+CATEGORY, then this bit of information won't be of any help to distinguish between these files' tasks, it will only help separating files with #+CATEGORY: A from files with #+CATEGORY: B. Then I think the right solution would be to have groups of agenda files. Something like: #+AGENDA_GROUP: personal This would let you restrict any agenda search to a group of agenda files. I don't want to digg too far in this direction, but I think there are a few other things for which such groups might be useful (e.g. publish agenda files per group...) My other concern is that the functionality you're requesting would resurrect #+CATEGORY, while this functionality was mostly maintained for backward compatibility -- at least I understood it like that. It's not that easy for users to understand how to user categories, and staying with two ways of setting them might be confusing IMO. PS: Personally, the problem you encounter is exactly the one that led me to use a single (really) big Org file. But this is entirely personal, of course! -- Bastien