quick correction, in the first paragraph: "... what matters is having the *data* you need..." - when you need it :)
Marcelo. On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa < celose...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the end, what matters is having the date you need. I think that, we are > so used to the document-per-file concept that we often forget that, in the > end, it's all bytes. > > Let me elaborate. Having one big file for reference, that is well tagged > can be more efficient and simpler than having several files (maybe one > subject per file, the way I'm doing, like a wiki) and integrates better with > the way org works. > > In the end, what matters is finding the data you want, and if you tag it > well, it's easier. In my wiki-like-approach, I don't have any tags, I rely > on rgrep to find relevant words, which works fine, but is not as good in the > organizational sense than correctly tagging a entry and finding by tag > (css,html,rails,etc). > > Let's say I have a new CSS hack that I just found out, and I'd like to take > note of it in a place where I could easily find it again whenever I need. > > My current workflow when I have something to keep as a reference (long-term > note) is this: > - list wiki pages/remember a relevant wiki "page" > - go to this wiki page or create another one - In this case, the page would > be ~/org/wiki/CSS.og > - create a top-level heading about the specific note and paste it below. > Optionally tag the heading (I haven't been doing this). > > With you approach, I could just use remember, and by tagging it with > CSS:HACK:, quicker to input, quicker to find it again (search by tag in the > agenda). > > However, something in my mind still prefers keeping files in a directory, > each for a subject. It seems cleaner. Seems like a paradigm to break :) > > Thanks, > > Marcelo. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Bernt Hansen <be...@norang.ca> wrote: > >> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celose...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I liked your self-contained approach, and I will try implementing it >> > in my workflow. Org does not stop amazing me on how flexible it is :) >> > >> > However, the value of having a wiki is also great IMO. It has a >> > workflow similar to tomboy (each new org file acts as a new tomboy >> > note) I don't have to think too much when creating a wiki page (just >> > type TheNameOfTheSubject.org, save it and begin typing, they are in a >> > central location (a wiki folder) and they are a great place to >> > register knowledge data. >> > >> > I don't know, that might be because I used WikiDPad for a long time on >> > my Windows days and loved its approach (Two things that org lacks as a >> > wiki-system, which is a way to view the wiki in a tree format and >> > automatically create links based on files in the filesystem or >> > camelcase. Not big deal features, but something that could be >> > contributed as a org extension - I would do it if I had the elisp >> > knowledge to do so :)) >> >> I used to use a wiki ... but I personally prefer the org->HTML export >> sequence to a wiki. All of my documents are available in org-mode >> source. >> >> I don't have the need to have multiple users edit the same source (which >> is the whole point of a wiki IMO). Wiki's have other issues if they are >> world editable - like spam bots and other things which I just didn't >> want to deal with. >> >> I found the org-mode format with export at least as powerful as the >> wiki's I've used. If you community of people working on the same >> content where some of them don't use org-mode then a wiki probably makes >> sense. >> >> I just don't need it for my workflow. >> >> -Bernt >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
