From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: [new exporter] adhere org-export-date-timestamp-format? Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:45:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87a9se794l.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <877gpj3raa.fsf@pank.eu> <87623stdza.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87bod2637u.fsf@gmail.com> <8738yeh6ts.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87wqvm2x3f.fsf@gmail.com> <87sj6ai8gx.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87k3rm2q03.fsf@gmail.com> <87vcb6qkdj.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <8762321vw4.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2L2-0002tv-TT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:45:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2Kz-0005yv-9m for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:45:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:53953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tu2Kz-0005yo-3W for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:45:33 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id o1so406578wic.12 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:45:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8762321vw4.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:30:19 +0100") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Rasmus Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > The attached patch moves them into org.el, with an org-timestamp- > prefix. Looks, good, please go ahead. > Though, I think I have to withdraw my proposal about using #+DATE: value > as a time format string. Indeed, date value, along with any document > property, is parsed, which defeats the purpose of using it as a format > string. > > We can still implement a convenient macro to handle timestamps in date > keyword. > > What do you think? Up to whatever you find more practical. Thanks! -- Bastien