Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>]

On Feb 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Bastien wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:05 AM, Wanrong Lin wrote:
>>>
>>> For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to
>>> have a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it
>>> would really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be
>>> even nicer to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates
>>> a strictly scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and
>>> hence a default ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack
>>> of real appointment support in org-mode in fact is a little bit
>>> puzzling to me, since SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly
>>> scheduled, while plain time stamp item may or may not be something
>>> that needs to take actions on (as it could be just an event).
>>
>> Hmmm, lets discuss this for a while.
>
> It looks like there are two questions here: whether we should have a
> dedicated syntax for appointments, distinct from active timestamps,  
> and
> whether we should allow warnings on other timestamps than deadline  
> ones.
> (Maybe a good thing to keep these issue separate as long as possible.)
>
> I don't feel the need of a new APPOINTMENT keyword, or a SCHEDULED@  
> one,
> because I'm using timestamps like this:
>
> - active timestamps for appointments;
>
> - SCHEDULED timestamps for items that (1) need to remain in the agenda
> when they are not DONE, and (2) I don't need to be warned about;
>
> - DEADLINE for everything else that I need to attach a date with.
>
> I guess this setup is somewhat counter-intuitive for newcomers, since
> the semantic of SCHEDULED makes you believe this is what you need for
> most tasks.  But I think this semantic is somewhat misleading.

Yes, time has shown tat it is misleading.  This is unfortunate,
but I don't think we can move always from this.  Too many people
are using this already, and we need to stay compatible and if possible
we should not add complexity.

- Carsten

>
>
> With the setup above, I tend to use more and more active timestamps  
> and
> deadlines.  The need for a scheduled item is very rare, since the two
> specific features of SCHEDULED is that I won't be warned about such
> tasks and I will be able to find them with `org-check-before-date'...
>
> So, rather than introducing a new keyword, I'd better get rid of them
> and redefine timestamps like this:
>
>
> [2008-02-28 jeu]   Inactive timestamp
> <2008-02-28 jeu>   Active timestamp
> {2008-02-28 jeu}   Interactive timestamp
>
>
> By "interactive", I mean that those timestamps would be aware of
> `org-deadline-warning-days' and other variables like this one, or be
> able to stay in the agenda if the associated task is not DONE, etc.
>
> For exemple:
>
> {2008-02-28 jeu -10d}
>   => Warn 10 days before
>
> {2008-02-28 jeu -10d--+2d}
>   => Warn 10 days before and 2 days after, if not DONE
>
> Active timestamp would also use this syntax, but for the purpose of
> defining *time spans*, not pre- and post-reminders.
>
> For example:
>
> <2008-02-18 jeu +3d>
>   => Define an appointment for a meeting between
>      2008-02-28 and 2008-02-21.
>
>
> I'm aware that this change would require a careful redefinition of the
> use of "scheduled" and "deadline" in variable names and in the manual,
> but I think that it would finally help simplifying things a bit.
>
> In a sense, relying spontaneous understanding that people have of the
> words "SCHEDULED" and "DEADLINE" can be a bit dangerous -- or simply
> assumes too much about the normal use of those kinds of timestamps.
>
> -- 
> Bastien