From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wanrong Lin <wanrong.lin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Release 6.23
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:08:26 -0500
Message-ID: <499EFFAA.10009@gmail.com>
References: <8DAA6002-FBD4-405C-8822-6E0FA892763B@uva.nl>
	<83skm9joer.fsf@cam.ac.uk>
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 1Laajm-0003yl-Vw
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:08:39 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Laajm-0003yM-8c
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:08:38 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39781 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Laajl-0003yF-SY
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:08:37 -0500
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:22222)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <wanrong.lin@gmail.com>) id 1Laajl-0007nw-AE
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:08:37 -0500
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so1509020fgb.30
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:08:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <83skm9joer.fsf@cam.ac.uk>
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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hi,

Glad to have different faces for TODO keywords now in HTML export. I 
would think it is logical to extend that idea to tags too. Anybody 
agrees? Thank you.

Wanrong