[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Occurance property, or some similar name?

From: Michael Brand
Subject: Re: [O] Occurance property, or some similar name?
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:42:19 +0200

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 16:43, Christopher Allan Webber
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Michael Brand <address@hidden> writes:
>> * _appointment_ that _occurs_ at bike shop (keyword inside drawer)
>>  :TIMESTAMP: <2011-04-12 Tue 19:00>
>>  :END:
>> * _appointment_ that _occurs_ at bike shop (keyword outside drawer)
>>  :TIMESTAMP: <2011-04-12 Tue 19:00>
>> * _appointment_ that _occurs_ at bike shop (keyword-less, at least for
>> backward compatibility)
>>   <2011-04-12 Tue 19:00>
> Interesting, I like that style.  My main concern is that newer orgmode
> files written in this form might break in older versions of orgmode.

Are your concerns concrete?

I have thought about and tested this already before: The three example
items above show up in the agenda, and are still correct even after
changing with `S->'. So this "newer/future" Org file format works even
with the "older/today" Org software. This is because the Org software
of today flexibly binds the special property TIMESTAMP per item to the
first active timestamp (i. e. "<>", not "[]") that is not prefixed
with `SCHEDULED: ' or `DEADLINE: '. This binding is the reason why I
would stick to the name TIMESTAMP when it comes to possibly new
features that should write this special property keyword explicitly
for this kind of timestamp. The sibling (not `C-c .') of `C-c
C-s'/`C-c C-d' that you suggested originally would be such a feature.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]