On 10 November 2016 at 10:36, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

Hello,

Alan L Tyree <alantyree@gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:

> Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be
> modified. Under 8.1, it says
>
> " A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> entry."

Section 8.1 is about regular time-stamps, which are not necessarily tied
to DEADLINE and SCHEDULED keyword. Therefore, the sentence above is
true.

> and under 8.3:
>
> "A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning:"
>
> I can't see anywhere that requires the DEADLINE: keyword to be flush
> against a heading.

This is in 8.3.1, first footnote.

So it is. Not exactly prominent :-). I still think the manual is misleading, and is there some reason that "planning" items are treated different from plain old appointment timestamps? I just seems (to a non-programmer) to be an unnecessary restriction.

Cheers,

Alan

Regards,

--
Nicolas Goaziou

Alan L Tyree http://austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:typhoon@iptel.org