Re: Is this proper time format?

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>]

David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com> writes:

> I've updated my patch file taking into account what you mentioned and
> what I tested.  Does this look all right?

Thanks! See inline comments below.

> -To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date
> -and/or a time.  The specially formatted string carrying the date and
> -time information is called a /timestamp/ in Org mode.
> +To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with dates
> +and/or times for purposes described in this chapter.  The specially
> +formatted string carrying the date and time information is called a
> +/timestamp/ in Org mode.

What is the purpose of this change? The updated sentence is rather
confusing, IMHO.
  
>  ** Timestamps
>  :PROPERTIES:
>  :DESCRIPTION: Assigning a time to a tree entry.
>  :END:
> +#+cindex: timestamps
> +#+cindex: ranges, time
> +#+cindex: deadlines
> +#+cindex: scheduling

We do not need cindex and other index keywords in org-guide.

> -A timestamp is a specification of a date---possibly with a time or
> -a range of times---in a special format, either =<2003-09-16 Tue>= or
> -=<2003-09-16 Tue 09:39>= or =<2003-09-16 Tue 12:00-12:30>=.
> -A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> -entry.  Its presence causes entries to be shown on specific dates in
> -the agenda (see [[*The Weekly/Daily Agenda]]).  We distinguish:
> +A timestamp is a specification of a date---possibly with a time or a
> +range of times---in a special format, either =<2003-09-16 Tue>= or
> +=<2003-09-16 Tue 09:39>= or =<2003-09-16 Tue 12:00-12:30>=.  A
> +timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> +entry.  Its presence causes entries to be shown on specific
> +dates/times in the agenda (see [[*The Weekly/Daily Agenda]]).  We
> +distinguish:

This is not accurate. Only date is considered by agenda. Not time.
Time can be displayed, but has no effect (by default) on whether an
entry appears in the agenda or not.

> -    <2006-11-02 Thu 20:00-22:00>
> +    <2006-11-02 Thu 10:00-12:00>

I do not mind, but wondering why you changed the time interval.

>  - Timestamp with repeater interval ::
>  
>    A timestamp may contain a /repeater interval/, indicating that it
> -  applies not only on the given date, but again and again after
> -  a certain interval of N days (d), weeks (w), months (m), or years
> -  (y).  The following shows up in the agenda every Wednesday:
> +  applies not only on the given date, but again and again after a
> +  certain interval of N hours (h), days (d), weeks (w), months (m), or
> +  years (y).  The following shows up in the agenda every week at the
> +  given day of the week and time:

I miss the point here. You changed the last sentence to mention time,
but the "following" example does not specify the time (<%%(diary-float t 4 2)>).

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>