From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Using org-mode for Research and Notetaking Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:20:27 +0200 Message-ID: <874o2q2zr8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <81d3hi75oj.fsf@gmail.com> <818vs674t7.fsf@gmail.com> <87liw582jg.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkkktwwk.fsf_-_@sophokles.streitblatt.de> <87bowy4l0j.fsf@gnu.org> <80wrfm33hm.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56017) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgxUB-000174-It for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:20:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgxU7-0005sr-3E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:20:11 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:56908) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgxU6-0005sG-Oq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:20:06 -0400 Received: by eyd9 with SMTP id 9so2279017eyd.0 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <80wrfm33hm.fsf@somewhere.org> (Sebastien Vauban's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:59:49 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Sebastien Vauban Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Sébastien, "Sebastien Vauban" writes: >> * !TODO This would be an inline task, not a headline > > I've no clear cut opinion on this right now. Maybe yes, maybe not. :) > Though, there are differences between inline tasks and headlines: Yep, I know the differences. I'm talking about the way they _look_. So many asterisks looks cumbersome to mee, and I'd favor a non-intrusive syntax like the one proposed above. My question was: what is the rationale behind using so many asterisks? I can think of three things: 1. people want inline tasks with possibly no TODO keyword 2. people prefer to detect them *very easily* 3. changing the syntax of inline tasks from changing todos (like !TODO) is too complicated code-wise My proposal is this: - enforce the use of TODO keywords in inline tasks (wrt 1) - make a special face for inline tasks (wrt 2) > Your proposition would be (very) nice when we don't have to link a > note to the task. My change would affect the content you can add to inline tasks and the way they are treated by exporters. > All such questions certainly merit more attention. Sure -- thanks for your input! -- Bastien