I don't think you are missing anything. Your first example leverages
inheritance (and you can turn that off if you don't want it), and your second
example doesn't.
In any case, the order of the tags is irrelevant. To me the real question is
what do you want to use them for?
I use them in
So a left-to-right listing of (colon-separated) tags after the heading
cannot imply a higher-to-lower hierarchical order? So there is no hierarchy
unless you create it, e.g.,
(setq org-tag-alist '((:startgrouptag)
("GTD")
(:grouptags)
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:30 AM John Kitchin
wrote:
> I was not aware of any implied hierarchy with tags. The order is not
> important as far as I know, and what you describe as mix-and-match seems
> ok. There is an idea of inheritance, e.g. sub-headings can inherit tags
I was not aware of any implied hierarchy with tags. The order is not
important as far as I know, and what you describe as mix-and-match seems
ok. There is an idea of inheritance, e.g. sub-headings can inherit tags
from higher headings.
In any case, you should be able to use agenda queries to find
Is it possible to have two or more tags that are "peers," i.e., all equal,
not in a hierarchy, be in an ad-hoc, as-needed way be hierarchical? For
example, I have the tags *org-mode, lisp, *and *emacs, *and I want to have
a header with the tags
* my header:emacs:org-mode:lisp:
So the above