From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: Schedule event Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:14:06 +0200 Message-ID: <80y5z5g34h.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <877h6raiwc.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <807h6qk2jq.fsf@somewhere.org> <8039heicwm.fsf@somewhere.org> <87ei0y8gu0.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Jason, Jason Dunsmore wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" writes: >> suvayu ali wrote: >>> Yes, this would be a nice addition. I always find it difficult to decide >>> how to put regular timestamps too. >> >> By regular timestamps, you mean: inactive timestamps? > > I think he means active timestamps with no keyword. The Org FAQ and manual > refer to active timestamps with no keyword as "plain timestamps". > >> Can you, maybe, comment on what makes the decision difficult? > > At least for me, in my early Org days, I wasn't sure of the best formatting > convention for "plain timestamps". I settled on putting them on the line > directly after the header with the proper indentation, since this is how > SCHEDULED items were inserted. OK. I thought the difficult decision was about the type of timestamps: SCHEDULED, not SCHEDULED but active, or inactive. Now, I understand he meant about the positioning of the timestamp itself. Thanks for clarifying this. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban