Michael Brand <michael.ch.br...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 16:43, Christopher Allan Webber > Are your concerns concrete? > > I have thought about and tested this already before: The three example > items above show up in the agenda, and are still correct even after > changing with `S->'. So this "newer/future" Org file format works even > with the "older/today" Org software. This is because the Org software > of today flexibly binds the special property TIMESTAMP per item to the > first active timestamp (i. e. "<>", not "[]") that is not prefixed > with `SCHEDULED: ' or `DEADLINE: '. This binding is the reason why I > would stick to the name TIMESTAMP when it comes to possibly new > features that should write this special property keyword explicitly > for this kind of timestamp. The sibling (not `C-c .') of `C-c > C-s'/`C-c C-d' that you suggested originally would be such a feature. > > Michael
That's interesting, and no, my concerns weren't concrete. I just tried inserting the timestamp property via C-c C-x p and saw that it error'ed, and wondered if there were further blocks around orgmode's system than just the property insertion tools. -- The bottom line.