[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken? |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:24:33 +0100 |
Simon Thum <address@hidden> writes:
> I know that, but I deemed it useful to document it as a related but
> separate mechanism on its own merit. Perhaps there could be a link to
> 10.3.1 to make it clear that the notations differ in important ways?
Since %%(...) syntax isn't a timestamp /per se/, there is no reason to
refer to it in the timestamps part of the manual.
Also, despite its own merit, it's an antiquated[fn:1] and irregular
syntax, which doesn't deserve much publicity. It won't disappear, but
it's better to circumvent its uses.
Regards,
[fn:1] Even the example given in "Calendar/Diary integration" section is
outdated, as it relies on CATEGORY keyword to change category on the fly
within the same section (see footnote in 10.4.1).
--
Nicolas Goaziou
- [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Simon Thum, 2012/11/06
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Simon Thum, 2012/11/09
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Nicolas Goaziou, 2012/11/10
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Simon Thum, 2012/11/10
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?,
Nicolas Goaziou <=
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Simon Thum, 2012/11/10
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Nicolas Goaziou, 2012/11/12
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Simon Thum, 2012/11/13
- Re: [O] Sexp aganda entries broken?, Nicolas Goaziou, 2012/11/13