I use both Comment and COMMENT, the later when it touches more urgent/critical issues. As the issues get solved, I include :noexport: to keep them as a reminder…
An example: --- * Comment on the use of Web citations It would be better if you could find articles or books. In general keep the number on Web references reasonable. * COMMENT on the listings We really don’t need the full program listings in your work. Please identify significant snippets and remove the rest. —— Sometimes, too, ‘Comment’ happens to be a natural way to begin a section title. Best, /PA > El 13 nov 2025, a las 17:38, Max Nikulin <[email protected]> escribió: > > On 12/11/2025 22:45, Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez wrote: >> Wouldn’t it be clearer to use noezport only >> and leave comment as a word that can be part of the title? > > Pedro, do you really use namely "COMMENT" (capital letters)? Do you have > issues with "TODO" and "DONE"? You may search in the mailing list archive > reasons why COMMENT was added. ORG-NEWS and git commit history may give more > hints. Please, start another thread if you find rationale behind the feature > as not convincing. > >>> El 12 nov 2025, a las 12:00, Andreas Matthias escribió: >>> >>> I use :noexport: extensively and didn't want to mix it with comments. But >>> your >>> idea set me on the right track: >>> >>> (setq org-export-exclude-tags '("noexport" "comment")) > > You may use "COMMENT", but you need ":noexport:" guards either at the end of > files or before "#+include:" lines. > > * For export > > A paragraph. > > * COMMENT Reasoning > > Some text > > * Fence for comment :noexport: > > Keep this heading, otherwise next =#+include:= in the parent file > will be ignored. > >>> I didn't notice the subtle differences between COMMENT and :noexport: so >>> far, > > Neither did I.
