Thanks for an interesting discussion about the merits of properties
versus tags etc. Very illuminating.
However, I do think that Adam's initial request to make the
category available as a special property for queries in not
unreasonble. Or does anyone disagree?
I am not sure, though, if the #+CATEGORY category should be
available with `org-entry-get', because it would then be very
hard for the property API to make a difference between a value
that is intimately associated with the current entry, and a
value that might be derived by some other mechanism. So here I
differ somewhat from Adam's feeling that category is just like
TODO or a tag. It is different.
But for the search interface, to allow CATEGORY="work", I think
that would be a safe thing to do. Will be in 5.14, unless I hear
good arguments against this.
- Carsten
On 7Nov2007, at 2:59 PM, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
On 07/11/2007, Adam Spiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:23:12PM +0100, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
On 07/11/2007, Adam Spiers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have several personal .org files, and several work-related
ones too.
In each personal file, I have a line:
#+CATEGORY: personal
and in each work-related file, I have a line:
#+CATEGORY: work
I would like to be able to bind agenda custom commands to do tag
searches which are narrowed to one of these categories, e.g.
"show me
all personal priority #A tasks". Such a search needs to span *all*
agenda files, therefore the standard per-buffer narrowing
provided by
the '<' binding in the *Agenda Commands* buffer is insufficient.
Would it make sense to include CATEGORY as a special property?
After
all, pretty much all other per-task meta-data ("TODO", "PRIORITY"
etc.) are already available via the property interface, and this
way,
I could easily achieve what I need with tag searches such as
CATEGORY="personal"+PRIORITY="A"
Thanks!
It would seem to me that this is exactly what tags does.
You could move everything down a level and use tag inheritance:
* personal stuff :personal:
* work stuff :work:
I could, but this would mean that each file would have a single
top-level entry, and the entire contents would be indented an extra
level, which I fear is a rather unattractive solution!
It's the technique i've been using, and yes, it is unattractive.
When i thought of tags, it was not explicitly for GTD context
specifier, it was also for adding searchable metadata to a todo node.
I'm finding out that it gets diluted somewhat.
It guess its a matter of taxonomy. Roughly i would see this as:
1. State - TODO - DO/CANCEL/DONE
2. Context - tags - :@home:@phone:
3. Date/Time - <2007-10-10>
4. Meta Context - Category - personal, work etc,
5. Meta State - Properties drawer - :EMAIL:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
6. Meta DateTime - state/time logging -
How about adding the context to the tag table with a prefix
character, say #?
Tim.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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