Hi Suvayu, suvayu ali wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: >> suvayu ali wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: >>>>> Another idea would be to introduce another keyword like APPT an place >>>>> these time stamps also into the second line. That might be more easy to >>>>> implement. >>>> >>>> FWIW, my instinctive reaction would be: yes, great! Maybe that clarifies >>>> the bits around dates: all active dates get keywords, only inactive ones >>>> are without any keyword. >>> >>> Yes, this would be a nice addition. I always find it difficult to decide >>> how to put regular timestamps too. >> >> By regular timestamps, you mean: inactive timestamps? Can you, maybe, >> comment on what makes the decision difficult? > > I meant active timestamps. I'll give you an example of a dilemma. > > * Timestamp in headline <2011-08-06 Sat> > For long headlines, this becomes really ugly.
I never used that form, in fact, because I don't like information to be placed at different columns over the different headlines. > * Timestamp below headline > <2011-08-06 Sat> > > Problem with this is, I can't use fill paragraph otherwise it gets > wrapped with the timestamp. The solution is to have a blank line in > between. Nor can't you do it with the first version, right? And the problem will stay, even if we have events keyword'ed with APPT or EVENT, do you agree? I never use `M-q' on headlines, as I know they have to stay on one line, whichever their length... A solution to this could be to make an Org-aware version of `M-q' that would not try to refill Org headlines. > As you see, my reasons are mostly about personal preference and > aesthetics. OK. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban