Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 2, 2006, at 19:24, Christian Schlauer wrote:
>> Also, 26:00 is against the rules ;-)
>
> That is certainly true, but I see no reason to explicitly forbid them.
Of course not! The "format" is unusual, but very useful.
> This is something that c
Hi Christian,
thanks for pointing to the relevant standards.
On Jun 2, 2006, at 19:24, Christian Schlauer wrote:
I see the problem, but I don't like these time formats at all. I'd
prefer if the agenda would show me things that are scheduled "early"
the next day (before 06:00, for example, shou
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, it can be useful to schedule something at 24:21 or even at
> 26:00 or so. because if you put such a date on your agenda for the
> next day, you might find out too late
I see the problem, but I don't like these time formats at all. I'd
pre
On Jun 2, 2006, at 16:11, Michael Olson wrote:
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It seems to me that the logic would be a bit better to schedule these
show uo as 0:00 and 0:21. If you wanted to put something at midnight
at the end of the day you would then have to use 24:00 and 24:
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to me that the logic would be a bit better to schedule these
> show uo as 0:00 and 0:21. If you wanted to put something at midnight
> at the end of the day you would then have to use 24:00 and 24:21.
>
> Opinions?
That would have the nice ef
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Should 12am be listed as 0:00 or as 24:00?
> Should 12:21am be listed as 0:21 or as 24:21?
>
I vote for 0:00 and 0:21
Dave in Largo, FL
___
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists
