From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Troxel Subject: Re: Schedule event Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:08:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <877h6raiwc.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <8739hc98rp.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <87vctnds1b.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:32802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwvCv-0004VS-4p for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:08:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwvCt-0006Vx-6e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:08:21 -0400 Received: from fnord.ir.bbn.com ([192.1.100.210]:64237) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwvCt-0006VU-3f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:08:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vctnds1b.fsf@gnu.org> (Bastien's message of "Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:26:24 +0200") 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: Bastien Cc: Carsten Dominik , Jason Dunsmore , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bastien writes: > Jason Dunsmore writes: > >> Carsten Dominik writes: >> >> Yes, that was my original reason. But your suggestion of adding a >> special keyword for events is another good reason. Also, as recently >> discussed, consistent formatting conventions and clarifying the >> frequently-misunderstood issue of SCHEDULED vs. no-keyword active >> timestamps are good reasons. > > I agree adding an EVENT: (or "APPT:") would be nice. I just started struggling with this when trying to make ical exports. (In my not-really-defined planning system :-) I have multiple kinds of events: events that I wish to be aware of, and perhaps choose to go to, but I don't consider myself to have a plan to attend. For this I use bare active timestamps. events that I am planning to attend, but which I feel reasonably free not to. For this I'm using TODO and SCHEDULED: (which I am thinking is wrong). events/meetings that I am committed to attending. For these I use APPT (a custom TODO sequence keyword) and SCHEDULED: After writing the above, I think my use of SCHEDULED: for events is just wrong, and I should use it only to label days (and perhaps times) that I plan to complete TODO items, and then use APPT/active and TODO/active for meetings and maybe-meetings. > PS: it took me long to reply because I'm also considering using=20 > the property drawer to store timestamps like SCHEDULED, DEADLINE > and so on. But it is a big move and we can't delay your request=20 > by relying on such a change. I almost always leave the property drawer collapsed, and it seems like it hides things I don't want to see. But I do want SCHEDULED, DEADLINE, etc. to be very visible. On the other hand, I would like the location property to be hoisted to the first/second line, so perhaps putting them all in the property drawer and having a customizable view where everyone can see their preferred subset, formatted nicely, would be best. Is that more or less what you are suggesting? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (NetBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5XjLEACgkQ+vesoDJhHiXG8ACfZVdsmM6zmN+9S+nuO+Fu9nCD C2oAoLaaqq+AhxKVbCWGsXxxRclgs15j =d+ZX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--