Gustav Wikström <gus...@whil.se> writes: [...]
> Sooo, a separate branch is created in the Org mode repository named > "next". I'm not entirely sure how we're supposed to work with it. But > I've anyways pushed my (non-breaking) patch there. Okay, thanks. I try to follow the development on the 'next' branch. [...] >> Noteworthy observations AFAICT: >> >> 1. I could not translate my personal "#+TODO: . N ~ | x c g >" into a >> respective :TODO: property. > > Yes, that's true. The reason is that there is no TODO-property that > fits in property drawers right now. I.e. special properties such as > TODO, TAGS, priority, scheduling and deadlines that have special > syntax for the outline still have no defined meaning for outline level > 0. I ofc. think that's an oversight ;) But I may also be a bit crazy. > > A conclusion to draw from that, that may be worth writing more about, > is that the property drawer for node level 0 will not be able to > replace all file-level keywords that exist today. Only properties that > currently can also be defined in property drawers in the outline will > work in the property drawer on level 0. Makes sense? Absolutely. > The idea I had for all the other keywords that apply for the whole > file was to create another drawer, what I called a settings drawer. > Because the TODO-keyword you refer to above really is a setting that > you're making for the current file, much the same as when you make > changes in global, folder local or file local variables using the > standard emacs framework. The idea of a settings drawer makes sense AFAICS. For the special case of TODO-keywords one could think about defining them per subtree. Possibly there are some low hanging fruit among the whole-file-properties that have a natural interpretation per subtree. > I've attached an investigation I did of the world of Org mode > keywords. It was done quite a while back and some things in there are > subjective and may not represent my current picture of the "ideal". > Nonetheless, maybe an interesting read for the ... other crazy people > out there? Okay, I'll have a look at your investigation. ;) BTW this document looks great to me at the first glance. Thanks, -- Marco