Re: [feature request] A new cookie type [!] showing the last note taken

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

>> You are right. I missed that \\ is also a newline for LaTeX export.
>
> It is a line break in any export back-end.

I did not know this and I cannot find any reference about such behaviour
in manual (info:org#Markup for Rich Contents).

>> However, it is unused it unordered lists. We might define a note as a
>> unnumbered list item with [@note]:
>>
>> - [@note] This is note
>
> That's a reasonable syntax extension, maybe too English-centered. Maybe
> a more abstract [@!] would be better.

It also looks better for me.
Should I open separate bug report proposing this syntax extension?

>> In addition, all the list items in :LOGBOOK: drawer may be considered
>> notes (to avoid a need to change the current format of the
>> automatically added notes).
>
> Notes are not necessary stuffed into a LOGBOOK drawer, or even into
> a drawer at all. Besides, LOGBOOK is a common word, and it is not
> unreasonable to think some user could have used it for other purposes.
>
> Old notes are going to be incompatible (as in ignored by any tool
> processing notes, not invalid markup) with the new ones. I don't think
> there's a way to eschew it. It doesn't seem to be a big deal, however,
> as you don't lose anything by keeping notes in old syntax around.

That said, if we decide about the new syntax, it might be a good idea to
provide command converting items inside LOGBOOK drawers into notes.

Best,
Ihor

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> You are right. I missed that \\ is also a newline for LaTeX export.
>
> It is a line break in any export back-end.
>
>> Another possibility is re-purposing counter definition from ordered
>> lists. Currently the "\\[@[0-9]+\\]" is used to force item number in
>> ordered lists:
>>
>> 1. item
>> 5. [@5] another item
>> 6. next item
>>
>> However, it is unused it unordered lists. We might define a note as a
>> unnumbered list item with [@note]:
>>
>> - [@note] This is note
>
> That's a reasonable syntax extension, maybe too English-centered. Maybe
> a more abstract [@!] would be better.
>
>> In addition, all the list items in :LOGBOOK: drawer may be considered
>> notes (to avoid a need to change the current format of the
>> automatically added notes).
>
> Notes are not necessary stuffed into a LOGBOOK drawer, or even into
> a drawer at all. Besides, LOGBOOK is a common word, and it is not
> unreasonable to think some user could have used it for other purposes.
>
> Old notes are going to be incompatible (as in ignored by any tool
> processing notes, not invalid markup) with the new ones. I don't think
> there's a way to eschew it. It doesn't seem to be a big deal, however,
> as you don't lose anything by keeping notes in old syntax around.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Nicolas Goaziou