From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id qGltOuzNWl/ocAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:07:56 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id GASFNuzNWl86YwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:07:56 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A7D940539 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 01:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:43480 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXXe-0000hW-Mh for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:07:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34416) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXXE-0000gE-Lk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:07:28 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]:37217) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXXD-0006vr-1d for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:07:28 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id kk9so887914pjb.2 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:07:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=CZYhwBkA6bCuGoczcvutTPuFBft4VC9C7qsZE8FSNgM=; b=DHvimEYnQAsfnfawRyFUwPIFvy19Hpg88HiX9g7Jb1SCZaOwuAiFB3tywN5IRGCBL2 JfxgH2R1f4pH88jI6gtu+aFZBFPwDyb293c4Y4dZeLnFDIuBsoXLf3BuwuKyPkgBxvY2 gMWyZ2j+BXzof8lnfZu2OLPVHoa5Y7rOQcJoLT9IREL4NNlvkDtAPB7hmT8eMTeVDpan tG9hZZbQBoc4coy/3tE6CaYICSIT0kkJS5xNlvqmiAVIxntxype+n9V8oz5QQr/7JW/M oTEnE0g9Zgun4yz1UzN/veIOKPcP4jt7Aoa2gMI7gbhlw4E10UqTVGkUNPX90QHwT+j3 xJFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=CZYhwBkA6bCuGoczcvutTPuFBft4VC9C7qsZE8FSNgM=; b=Vj0DBm7sXqOTOmpLNY7EAH0UdFvuC8FvmXC6IUtjnmeiasaD1fOdtFkV1jDGdEj8t/ fHA7XuuDuqpqFlJ00freyCxlVBJRgfr4RhUMiG1zg0/USilrhlMhsAZz6dmVWL/kdmuJ zMp1t2aSIPsenYdgU082/pfiiVpK8142pn63Qh7h0JmmUS2hq2O0JQXmnenusfTjCjcE MoQ4UyrxRBXvoNT+33n8p6MiIxvoOzEssdcxLYFJsgcd9NNdeo0qIea7K5l8v0SaIzdP l/KaqIVN3FJXKtOjNHysQ3Jw6Q8n9smdbDdl81fgLEQ3or0n47CdSql2ijAcQS0jDBFY w++w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530C4ocgDz0X/6OrWyHXsGQDq1wPP+KO0NZnE04SJ51BckeQ14b/ D4+s5XvIxFNdRPkEsqob25iFM5bqMSjQgh7h X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwIO5ppu6D5iFZZm2lfvHgpK+V+fw+PA0wsESjrvqNVIFWpnnwszOtedM3LKCd6OnlZdKY6aQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:588f:: with SMTP id j15mr2410979pji.43.1599786445671; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([104.250.131.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d128sm122426pfd.94.2020.09.10.18.07.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Ihor Radchenko To: TRS-80 , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: Any reason not to generate my own custom ID value (NOT CUSTOM_ID)? In-Reply-To: <7689df3cbba5ea4afec672d80f99c590@isnotmyreal.name> References: <8e204de9ad9da09812991449c64d7aad@isnotmyreal.name> <7689df3cbba5ea4afec672d80f99c590@isnotmyreal.name> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:06:26 +0800 Message-ID: <87pn6ti0kt.fsf@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a; envelope-from=yantar92@gmail.com; helo=mail-pj1-x102a.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=DHvimEYn; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 1.29 X-TUID: MNdJciCOqQpy > I do appreciate all the replies so far. However as I plan on relying > on this to implement some quite critical functionality for a package I > am working on (a sort of Zettelkasten / TiddlyWiki in Orgmode if you > will) I would feel a lot more comfortable with some additional > reassurences that what I am planning is not some crazy or bad idea. Is there any particular reason why you even need to display :ID: value to the user? If only id: links are concerned, link description can be made short and human-readable. Best, Ihor TRS-80 writes: > On 2020-09-10 18:20, Samuel Wales wrote: >> this or something similar has definitely been discussed on this >> mailing list. so you are not alone. > > Yes, I also thought certainly this must have been discussed before. I > did try searching the list, but I think the relevant search terms are > too common, short ("ID", etc.) and/or too close to unrelated things > (i.e. CUSTOM_ID when I am looking for "custom ID", etc.) to produce > any good results. Or maybe my search-fu is just bad. > >> although i undersatnd the whole thing as readable id's. dunno if that >> is the prupose. > > Essentially, yes, more readable. But also shorter, and perhaps most > importantly, /meaningful/. > >> maybe something like a timestamp and then the usual id would give you >> pretty good uniqueness. > > The uniqueness I outlined in OP (down to minute) is plenty enough for > my use-case. The /last/ thing I want to do is to go the other way, and > make the ID even longer! > > I do appreciate all the replies so far. However as I plan on relying > on this to implement some quite critical functionality for a package I > am working on (a sort of Zettelkasten / TiddlyWiki in Orgmode if you > will) I would feel a lot more comfortable with some additional > reassurences that what I am planning is not some crazy or bad idea. > > Thanks, > TRS-80