TODO keywords into drawers ?

TODO keywords into drawers ?

[Xavier Maillard]

hi,

I am relatively new (even if I used it years ago) to orgmode.

I extensively use remember to jot down new tasks/notes/... it
feets perfectly since it is almost instantaneous.

Sometimes, when at work, someone enters my room to speak about a
project. When finished, I fire remember and try to sum up our
discussion. This is not really a task to do but when reviewing my
notes, it can be switched to a task entry.

With my current setup, I have to differenciate, when in remember,
if it is a task, a note or something else. If I do not, I do not
see these entries when reviewing my org files. This is the big
hole in my system which makes me not trust my system :/

What I'd like to have in orgmode is a simpler and homogeneous way
to do things.

* TODO foo bar

would be

* foo bar
:TYPE:
 TODO
:END:

a note would be

* foo bar
:TYPE:
NOTE
:END:

etc.

A default entry would have a special entry type -say UNKNOWN-
thus making the review much more trustable. What I like in this
idea is the homegenous view of any orgmode file and I guess this
would make orgmode file parsing a lot easier.

We could even go further by storing all orgmode entries meta-data
into drawers (tags, timestamps, states, ...)

WDYT ?

Regards

Xavier

Re: TODO keywords into drawers ?

[Carsten Dominik]

On Aug 18, 2009, at 6:31 AM, Xavier Maillard wrote:

> hi,
>
> I am relatively new (even if I used it years ago) to orgmode.

I still remember.... :-)

>
> I extensively use remember to jot down new tasks/notes/... it
> feets perfectly since it is almost instantaneous.
>
> Sometimes, when at work, someone enters my room to speak about a
> project. When finished, I fire remember and try to sum up our
> discussion. This is not really a task to do but when reviewing my
> notes, it can be switched to a task entry.
>
> With my current setup, I have to differenciate, when in remember,
> if it is a task, a note or something else. If I do not, I do not
> see these entries when reviewing my org files. This is the big
> hole in my system which makes me not trust my system :/

For things that you need to decide about later, I would use
a special template with a special tag.  You can then later
always searc for this tag, decide, and refile.

>
> What I'd like to have in orgmode is a simpler and homogeneous way
> to do things.
>
> * TODO foo bar
>
> would be
>
> * foo bar
> :TYPE:
> TODO
> :END:

No.  I believe that having TODO keywords and tags in special
places is really critical for Org-mode when used in a simple
way.  And since the philosophy of Org is to build up use from
simple to complex, I don't want to change this.  Also, I fail
to see how this would help the proble you describe above.

On the other hand, you can define with a template that will
interactively prompt you for a tag, so that you can make this
decision when starting remember.

- Carsten

>
> a note would be
>
> * foo bar
> :TYPE:
> NOTE
> :END:
>
> etc.
>
> A default entry would have a special entry type -say UNKNOWN-
> thus making the review much more trustable. What I like in this
> idea is the homegenous view of any orgmode file and I guess this
> would make orgmode file parsing a lot easier.
>
> We could even go further by storing all orgmode entries meta-data
> into drawers (tags, timestamps, states, ...)
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: TODO keywords into drawers ?

[Matt Lundin]

Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org> writes:

> I extensively use remember to jot down new tasks/notes/... it
> feets perfectly since it is almost instantaneous.
>
> Sometimes, when at work, someone enters my room to speak about a
> project. When finished, I fire remember and try to sum up our
> discussion. This is not really a task to do but when reviewing my
> notes, it can be switched to a task entry.
>
> With my current setup, I have to differenciate, when in remember,
> if it is a task, a note or something else. If I do not, I do not
> see these entries when reviewing my org files. This is the big
> hole in my system which makes me not trust my system :/

As Carsten suggested, tags are probably the best way to mark tasks in
the way you suggest. Org-remember can be instructed (via templates) to
prompt for tags:

,----
| %^g         prompt for tags, with completion on tags in target file.
| %^G         prompt for tags, with completion all tags in all agenda files.
`----

Or, if you prefer, you could create different templates for different
tags (:NOTE:, :UNKNOWN:, etc.).

Another recommendation would be to instruct remember to file new notes
to a single location (e.g., inbox.org or * inbox). You could then
regularly review/process/empty this "inbox." That way you'd be sure not
to miss any new notes.

> What I'd like to have in orgmode is a simpler and homogeneous way
> to do things.
>
> * TODO foo bar
>
> would be
>
> * foo bar
> :TYPE:
>  TODO
> :END:
>
> a note would be
>
> * foo bar
> :TYPE:
> NOTE
> :END:
>
> etc.
>
> A default entry would have a special entry type -say UNKNOWN-
> thus making the review much more trustable. What I like in this
> idea is the homegenous view of any orgmode file and I guess this
> would make orgmode file parsing a lot easier.
>
> We could even go further by storing all orgmode entries meta-data
> into drawers (tags, timestamps, states, ...)

If you want to avoid todos and tags, you can always use PROPERTY drawers
for custom metadata.

E.g.

 * foo bar
  :PROPERTIES:
  :TYPE: note
  :END:

And, of course, you can have remember templates prompt you to fill these
in.  

,----
| %^{prop}p   Prompt the user for a value for property prop
`----

Warning: it can be much slower to search for properties than to search
for todo-states and tags.

Best,
Matt

Re: TODO keywords into drawers ?

[Xavier Maillard]

At Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:40:08 -0400,
Matt Lundin wrote:

> Warning: it can be much slower to search for properties than to search
> for todo-states and tags.

Can you explain why it could be much slower ?

Xavier