From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:29:51 +0100 Message-ID: References: <47C48C56.6050206@gmail.com> <1F133D29-7823-413B-92D3-2B1844D8F507@science.uva.nl> <47C582C3.4090405@gmail.com> <873arexu8b.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca> <871w6x7tsz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <47C616FC.3030009@gmail.com> <87abllcrhu.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JUkhq-0000Ow-A2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:29:58 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JUkhp-0000O7-Fg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:29:57 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JUkhp-0000Ny-CW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:29:57 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JUkhp-0005OT-7W for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:29:57 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so366771ugf.48 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:29:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87abllcrhu.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Feb 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Bastien wrote: > Carsten Dominik 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