On 10 November 2016 at 10:36, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > Alan L Tyree <alanty...@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 <http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan> Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:typh...@iptel.org
