From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk>
Subject: Re: definition lists in org-mode
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:45:45 +0100
Message-ID: <468E1D59.6030006@calicojack.co.uk>
References: <b71b18520707051501u5c77bf48pdf9f790a8c9ec52a@mail.gmail.com>
	<468E11C4.50604@calicojack.co.uk>
	<6da9122d5b79844f2856186565289598@science.uva.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I6lKm-0001FJ-0W
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:46:44 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I6lKl-0001Ez-DP
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:46:43 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6lKl-0001Ew-98
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:46:43 -0400
Received: from storm.bpweb.net ([83.223.106.8])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rick@calicojack.co.uk>) id 1I6lKk-00006O-Mx
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:46:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6da9122d5b79844f2856186565289598@science.uva.nl>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
Cc: Eddward DeVilla <eddward@gmail.com>, org-mode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> 
> Well, a two-state todo setup really *is* a checkbox, even if it does
> not look like one.  About the only difference is the command you
> use to toggle the state.

I agree that they have the same number of states, but I think the 
differences between them are far greater than the command used to toggle 
state.

Obvious differences are that checkboxes don't show in the agenda and to 
my knowledge they can't be scheduled/deadlined etc...  They also 
(perhaps by convention more than anything else) indicate an ordered or 
unordered list, which outlines (at least for me) don't.

After thinking about it; I have on occasion wanted to schedule a 
checkboxed item into the agenda.  This said I'm not convinced supporting 
this is a good idea.  Does anyone else have any views?

R.