From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Re: [bug] Gnus author in capture templates not working Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:21:42 +0200 Message-ID: <877hicgta1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y6bbj3wb.fsf@mundaneum.com> <877hivje71.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <87wrqvjcgy.fsf@mundaneum.com> <87sk1ex63u.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <874odrl4tz.fsf@mundaneum.com> <87wrqhfkkw.fsf@gnu.org> <871v8oyh6s.fsf@mundaneum.com> <87zkvaqfvj.fsf@gnu.org> <87y6ato8bj.fsf@mundaneum.com> <87ocbph66e.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <874odgdhob.fsf@gnu.org> <87bp7oxrj1.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de> <87pqw446x4.fsf@mundaneum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44475 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OyrMY-0002SE-G8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:21:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyrMX-0004ag-7c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:21:46 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:45612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyrMX-0004aN-2z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:21:45 -0400 Received: by wwb24 with SMTP id 24so2198189wwb.30 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:21:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87pqw446x4.fsf@mundaneum.com> (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22S=E9bastien?= Vauban"'s message of "Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:05:27 +0200") 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: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= Vauban Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Sebastian, Sébastien Vauban writes: > Though, for the scheduling part, I don't need a full timestamp: I just want to > specify when (which day) I intend to work on it, and reply to it. There, it'd > be cool to have a timestamp with only date and day of the week (no time). > > Does this make sense? Mh... I'm not sure. :) Why don't you use a "SCHEDULED: %t" in this case? You'd still have to manually schedule the task correctly, of course. -- Bastien