From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan L Tyree Subject: Re: DEADLINE: position in entry Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:42:30 +1100 Message-ID: References: <84twbg7n11.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46543) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Zhh-00078W-H0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:42:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Zhd-0007aM-HM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:42:41 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]:33398) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Zhd-0007aF-9u for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:42:37 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id d2so132493140pfd.0 for ; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (202.63.32.163.static.rev.eftel.com. [202.63.32.163]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 186sm1302728pfv.61.2016.11.09.12.42.34 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:42:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote: > On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl wrote: >> In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE. > I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does > *not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint not > intend to catch this sort of thing? > > Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be modified. Under 8.1, it says " A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree entry." and under 8.3: "A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning:" I can't see anywhere that requires the DEADLINE: keyword to be flush against a heading. There may be some reason for requiring this, but if there is no good reason, I would like to see it changed to be more flexible. Alan -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:typhoon@iptel.org