From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: New exporter and dates in tables Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:37:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87wqs58c7h.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> <87mwt2aefz.fsf@gmail.com> <874nfa34vj.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87ehee9vz6.fsf@gmail.com> <87ip3p8mun.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56218) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1URN87-0007Xt-3M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:38:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1URN83-0005br-Nv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:38:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ip3p8mun.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> (Bastien's message of "Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:58:43 +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: > Let's not implement my proposal and stick to your implementation of > the exceptions you first proposed. Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, I want to make sure we are understanding each other. > I expect users will want a way to get rid of in > > * Task > > > without getting rid of time-stamps in paragraphs, but this can be > tackled later on I guess. According to your suggestion, with `org-export-with-timestamps' set to `not-standalone', in the following example: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- * Task At , I must do that. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- the first would be ignored, not the second one. Isn't it what you want? Also, we can do it the TDD way: just throw in a bunch of examples and we'll come up with an implementation that conforms to all of them (if they are reasonable enough). Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou