From: "Gustav Wikström" <gustav@whil.se>
To: "adam@alphapapa.net" <adam@alphapapa.net>
Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Document level property drawer
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 18:20:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <HE1PR02MB30336573AAD1DCB52AF85106DA990@HE1PR02MB3033.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
Hi again Adam,
> IIUC, your proposal would work like this:
>
> #+BEGIN_SRC org
> :PROPERTIES:
> :CATEGORY: Gamma
> :END:
>
> # Category here is "Gamma"
>
> ,* Node 1
>
> # Category here is "Gamma"
>
> ,* Node 2
> :PROPERTIES:
> :CATEGORY: Beta
> :END:
>
> # Category here is "Beta"
>
> ,#+CATEGORY: Alpha
> #+END_SRC
You understand correctly. In that case precedence would kick in since
a category is defined using both a category keyword and a category
inside the document property drawer. The example above is mostly
theoretical since there is no use-case for having category set on
document level using both conventions. If the example above was a real
document I'd suggest removing either the category keyword or the
category property from the document property drawer.
> In Org, some keywords are special, like #+CATEGORY. For many years,
> such keywords have had file-wide effects regardless of their placement
> in the file. IIUC, your proposal would change that, and that would
> still be a major, breaking change.
This seems disingenuous. In no way is this a major, breaking change.
No document you have today will break by the introduction of this.
The only thing changing is if you *actively* create a document level
property drawer and choose to enter a property there that you already
have defined in the same document, using a property keyword.
Keywords that previously had file-wide effects will continue to have
that. That's not removed. So you must have missunderstood something
here.
I understand you dislike the preference of letting the property drawer
have a higher precedance than property keywords, if the same property
is defined in both ways. I've already argued why I think that is the
sane choice to make. But having that precedance doesn't break anything
since you cannot define a property drawer on document level today.
> > If you think of the document as an outline, something Org mode is all
> > about, it makes sense to also think of things before the first
> > headline as "node level 0". And with that way of conceptually thinking
> > of the document it makes perfect sense to have a property drawer fixed
> > at the top - in the same way as it is required for all other node
> > levels.
>
> What you're proposing is actually a fundamental change to the way Org
> documents are interpreted. Org documents are not currently an outline,
> just a series of elements which may include an outline. Text and
> elements before a first heading are not part of a node, they're just
> text and elements in the document.
I don't agree here. What I'm proposing in this patch doesn't change
the fundament of an Org mode document. I'd rather say it enhances the
fundament! Since the outline to a large extent is the fundament! The
following quote is from the documentation - Chapter 2, Document
Structure:
#+begin_quote
Org is an outliner. Outlines allow a document to be organized in a
hierarchical structure, which, least for me, is the best representation
of notes and thoughts.
#+end_quote
Thus, saying Org documents are not currently an outline again feels
disingenuous and at this point I struggle to take your comments
seriously.
Regards
Gustav
next reply other threads:[~2019-10-05 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-05 18:20 Gustav Wikström [this message]
2019-10-06 0:51 ` [RFC] Document level property drawer Adam Porter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-10-24 22:29 Gustav Wikström
2019-10-20 2:28 Gustav Wikström
2019-10-22 21:24 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-23 8:43 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-23 8:59 ` Gustav Wikström
2019-10-24 21:01 ` Gustav Wikström
2019-10-25 12:58 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-23 16:08 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-06 6:02 Gustav Wikström
2019-10-06 5:35 Gustav Wikström
2019-10-02 20:29 Gustav Wikström
2019-09-30 22:09 Gustav Wikström
2019-10-03 18:31 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-04 10:38 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-06 1:01 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-07 7:46 ` Marco Wahl
2019-09-29 10:27 Gustav Wikström
2019-09-29 19:13 ` Marco Wahl
2019-09-30 16:01 ` Adam Porter
2019-09-30 20:46 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-01 12:38 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-01-13 21:52 ` Marco Wahl
2020-01-15 8:18 ` Sebastian Miele
2020-02-01 19:59 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-01 13:55 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-02 10:29 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-03 18:06 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-04 11:05 ` Marco Wahl
2019-10-06 1:05 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-06 5:10 ` Matt Price
2019-10-15 17:49 ` Gustav Wikström
2019-10-16 0:48 ` Adam Porter
2019-10-16 9:48 ` Marco Wahl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=HE1PR02MB30336573AAD1DCB52AF85106DA990@HE1PR02MB3033.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com \
--to=gustav@whil.se \
--cc=adam@alphapapa.net \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).