From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: New exporter and dates in tables Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:54:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87mwt2aefz.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87fvz1opiz.fsf@norang.ca> <8761zxwlvn.fsf@gmail.com> <87bo9pntym.fsf@norang.ca> <0604BF00-1FE8-4EAA-A346-C125A5127CAD@gmail.com> <877gkcvm3n.fsf@gmail.com> <173ADFE7-A1FB-4ECB-A78A-C99662A8030F@gmail.com> <87fvyysghk.fsf@gmail.com> <87bo9mh6ex.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87d2u1s3wf.fsf@gmail.com> <8738uxrrtc.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46677) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQy6K-0005Bk-Mz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:54:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UQy6J-0006km-GF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:54:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8738uxrrtc.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> (Bastien's message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:49:03 +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: Bastien Cc: Bernt Hansen , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Carsten Dominik Hello, Bastien writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: > >> Thinking more about it, I think I need to make some more exceptions >> anyway. For example timestamps in clock lines and in planning info >> shouldn't react to `org-export-with-timestamps' (it would be silly to >> have `org-export-with-planning' set to t and still see nothing because >> `org-export-with-timestamps' is nil). > > Indeed :) > > Thinking again about Bernt's use-case and Carsten's feedback, > I suggest making rules for planning instead of exceptions for > time-stamps. > > - planning information is > - SCHEDULED: > - DEADLINE: > - CLOSED: > - one or more time-stamps (active or inactive) alone on a line > > - a non-planning time-stamp is any time-stamp that does not fall > into the categories above, i.e. if it is inlined in an element > (usually a paragraph or a table). SCHEDULED and friends define a property in the associated headline. Generic timestamps don't (excepted for the first one, but it's arbitrary and the parser ignores it anyway). Also, there can be as many active timestamps in a section, but there can be only one planning info element. Therefore, I don't think they belong to the same category. We ought to treat them differently, like we do at the moment. > The inactive/active time-stamp in a table is handled. > > And so is another corner case that we did not discussed yet: > people using active time-stamps right below a headline, with > the expectation that this time-stamp will bring the entry up > in the agenda -- such time-stamp is now considered a time-stamp > while it is really some planning info. This is obviously some planning info, but not a "planning-info" element. Any active timestamp is a planning info by the way. The "planning-info" term just defines the line with SCHEDULED, DEADLINE, CLOSED keyword. It may be silly, be a name had to be chosen. Anyway, I don't think it's a corner case. > I guess this is cleaner than creating exceptions. > > What about it? I'd rather create the aforementioned exceptions (in tables but more importantly in planning info and clocks): it is important to distinguish "planning-info" from a mere timestamp. We can change the name if it's confusing, though. Is that OK with you? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou