[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [RFC] Document level property drawer

From: Marco Wahl
Subject: Re: [RFC] Document level property drawer
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:52:11 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)

Sebastian Miele <address@hidden> writes:

> But for such properties to satisfactorily work for me, they would have
> to be visible by default. E.g. I would want the header-args to be
> immediately visible just like they are when they are written after
> #+BEGIN_SRC or #+HEADER. Otherwise I would find myself constantly
> wondering whether this or that property drawer contains something
> essential and every TAB on a collapsed headline would have be followed
> by an accompanying move to the property drawer and a TAB there.
> On the other hand, there are properties that are very good candidates
> for remaining hidden by default, like ID.
> I would like to be able to make a clear distinction between properties
> that are visible by default and properties that are not. Maybe it would
> be possible to allow some #+.. syntax following headings for subtree
> properties that are visible by default. A requirement could be made that
> such property specifications always have to be followed by a property
> drawer, even if that is empty. Then everything #+.. that is before the
> property drawer would belong to the heading/subtree, and everything #+..
> that follows the drawer would be treated as it is until now.
> Please tell me if I missed something and Org is already capable of
> something like that. If not, are there others who would like
> visible-by-default property specifications for headings/subtrees in
> addition to invisible-by-default property specifications in drawers,
> too?

I don't think Org is capable of this out of the box right now.  Further
I don't feel the need for a visible-by-default property, but that's just

> Finally, I would like to state an opinion: If there is
> visible-by-default (by #+..) and invisible-by-default (by drawers)
> syntax for headings/subtrees, including level 0, it may be viable to
> require them to be disjoint for each heading/subtree. Most probably it
> would be good practice, anyway. And the precedence question raised
> previously in this thread would be eliminated.

I may not feel the need for the visible/invisible-by-default properties
but actually I like the idea of #+ properties parallel to the property
drawers as visible by default properties.  But since the #+ properties
may appear anywhere in the Org file and affect the whole file it would
be difficult or even impossible to give them reliable meaning for
subtrees AFAICS.

My 2ct,

reply via email to

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