From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Re: Adding tags, grouping tags Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:09:58 +0200 Message-ID: <89E7C366-AB71-422B-89DB-4E0C1590332D@gmail.com> References: <4CB74A73.2090202@gmx.de> <87k4lk57aj.fsf@noorul.maa.corp.collab.net> <20101015102958.9266699h4ij44e80@webmail.df.eu> <2673DFCA-F3F1-4155-966C-F4EA739AA79A@gmail.com> <20101015105247.90984aq253ya95k4@webmail.df.eu> <281FEC66-0C21-419B-BA2E-84D41BB3A0F3@gmail.com> <4CB9FC60.7020607@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35985 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P7D4t-0007A5-I4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:10:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P7D4s-0001d7-Dj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:10:03 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:58084) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P7D4s-0001ce-7i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:10:02 -0400 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so1404064ewy.0 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB9FC60.7020607@alum.mit.edu> 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: rjhorn@alum.mit.edu Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Robert Horn wrote: > On 10/16/2010 01:32 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote: >> >> On Oct 15, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote: >> >>> Karl Maihofer gmx.de> writes: >>>> Besides that I have tags in other contexts, e.g. GTD-related tags >>>> etc. >>>> So it would be very useful to be able to group the tags as it is >>>> possible for agenda commands. >>> >>> I think that a way to define logical groups of tags (or even a >>> hierarchy of tags >>> -- say with a subtree of tag names?) would be a very useful >>> addition. >> >> I can see that this could be useful - but the code is >> not in any way prepared to do this, so this would be pretty hard >> to implement. >> > Is it worth exploring use of the properties drawer? The tags in org > are > a fairly simple and thus limited structure. The properties drawer can > have a lot more structure with a more controlled environment. I don't think I understand what you mean here. How would that help? - Carsten