Capturing, refiling, archiving

Capturing, refiling, archiving

[Titus von der Malsburg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 587 bytes --]


Capturing, refiling, and archiving all create a new entry at a target
location.  Yet each of these facilities has it’s own way to specify the
target.  Capture templates have the most powerful target specification
and refiling and archiving are both fairly limited.  For users that is
confusing and it prevents them from getting the most out of org-mode.  Is
there a technical reason for why different target specifications are
used or is it just historical?  Wouldn’t it make sense to use just one
target specification “language” and to use that everywhere?

  Titus

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]

Re: Capturing, refiling, archiving

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Titus von der Malsburg <malsburg@posteo.de> writes:

> Capturing, refiling, and archiving all create a new entry at a target
> location.  Yet each of these facilities has it’s own way to specify the
> target.  Capture templates have the most powerful target specification
> and refiling and archiving are both fairly limited.  For users that is
> confusing and it prevents them from getting the most out of org-mode.  Is
> there a technical reason for why different target specifications are
> used or is it just historical?  Wouldn’t it make sense to use just one
> target specification “language” and to use that everywhere?

Would you mind elaborating? What, exactly, are you suggesting?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Capturing, refiling, archiving

[Titus von der Malsburg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2351 bytes --]


On 2015-05-13 Wed 03:40, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Titus von der Malsburg <malsburg@posteo.de> writes:
>
>> Capturing, refiling, and archiving all create a new entry at a target
>> location.  Yet each of these facilities has it’s own way to specify the
>> target.  Capture templates have the most powerful target specification
>> and refiling and archiving are both fairly limited.  For users that is
>> confusing and it prevents them from getting the most out of org-mode.  Is
>> there a technical reason for why different target specifications are
>> used or is it just historical?  Wouldn’t it make sense to use just one
>> target specification “language” and to use that everywhere?
>
> Would you mind elaborating? What, exactly, are you suggesting?

The specification format used for capture templates seems to be the most
expressive.  I was wondering if it would make sense to use that also
for refiling targets and for archiving targets.  Specifically, I’d like
to be able to say things like this:

  (setq org-refile-targets
    '(((file+olp my-agenda-file "Agenda" "Finished") :prepend t)
      ((file+olp my-agenda-file "Agenda" "Urgent") :prepend t)))

and

  (setq org-archive-location
    '((file+olp my-agenda-file "Agenda" "Finished") :prepend t))

The reason why I think this would be useful is that some simple things
are currently not possible.  Consider the following document structure:

  * Office
  ** To do
  ** Finished
  * Home
  ** To do
  ** Finished

If I want to archive things under the “Agenda/Finished,” there is no way
to achieve this (correct me if I’m wrong).  I could try this

  (setq org-archive-location "::** Finished")

but that is ambiguous.  It doesn’t indicate which of the two “Finished”
nodes should be the target.

Similar problems exist for refile targets: if I want to have the first
“Finished” in my targets but not the second, how would I achieve that?
None of the available facilities allows me to do this (without changing
the document structure).

Using the capture template way of specifying targets, both problems
would be easy to solve because that mechanism allows me to specify the
complete path in the document tree leading to the node of interest
(among other things, file+regexp, etc.)

  Titus
    



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]

Re: Capturing, refiling, archiving

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Titus von der Malsburg <malsburg@posteo.de> writes:

> The reason why I think this would be useful is that some simple things
> are currently not possible.  Consider the following document structure:
>
>   * Office
>   ** To do
>   ** Finished
>   * Home
>   ** To do
>   ** Finished
>
> If I want to archive things under the “Agenda/Finished,” there is no way
> to achieve this (correct me if I’m wrong).  I could try this
>
>   (setq org-archive-location "::** Finished")
>
> but that is ambiguous.  It doesn’t indicate which of the two “Finished”
> nodes should be the target.
>
> Similar problems exist for refile targets: if I want to have the first
> “Finished” in my targets but not the second, how would I achieve that?
> None of the available facilities allows me to do this (without changing
> the document structure).
>
> Using the capture template way of specifying targets, both problems
> would be easy to solve because that mechanism allows me to specify the
> complete path in the document tree leading to the node of interest
> (among other things, file+regexp, etc.)

Capture and Refile are two very different concepts. In the former, you
define a static, or a set of static, accurate location that may not
exist yet. In the latter, you pile up existing locations that you filter
interactively, depending on the situation.

In your example above, it is possible to refile under any "Finished"
headline by choosing the right path.

Archiving may indeed lack a way to specify a full path in a document.
But supporting the full capture template elements doesn't make sense
either. You cannot archive into a table, an item...


Regards,

Re: Capturing, refiling, archiving

[Titus von der Malsburg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]


On 2015-05-17 Sun 01:13, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Capture and Refile are two very different concepts. In the former, you
> define a static, or a set of static, accurate location that may not
> exist yet. In the latter, you pile up existing locations that you filter
> interactively, depending on the situation.

I understand that.  But in principle it would be possible to use the
same or at least a very similar specification language for targets.  But
nevermind, it’s not exactly important.

> In your example above, it is possible to refile under any "Finished"
> headline by choosing the right path.

You mean I can specify a path by typing it in when prompted by
`org-refile'?  Because the documentation of `org-refile-targets' doesn’t
mention the possibility to specify paths as far as I can see.

> Archiving may indeed lack a way to specify a full path in a document.
> But supporting the full capture template elements doesn't make sense
> either. You cannot archive into a table, an item...

Good point.

  Titus


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]

Re: Capturing, refiling, archiving

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Titus von der Malsburg <malsburg@posteo.de> writes:

> You mean I can specify a path by typing it in when prompted by
> `org-refile'?  Because the documentation of `org-refile-targets' doesn’t
> mention the possibility to specify paths as far as I can see.

See `org-refile-use-outline-path'.

Regards,