On Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-5, Thomas Passin wrote: > > > That's up in the air for me. Should it represent the creation time or the > last-modified time? @AndyJim sounded like he'd like to use a last-modified > time, because he likes to see what he was working on at a certain period. > I don't want to add yet another piece of metadata if it's not needed. It > would be simple to modify the id insertion command to also insert a time > the command was run, so it's doable if people think it would be important. > Yet the Leo id does actually include a timestamp for the creation time. > It's just not formatted to be as readable. So by inserting the id, we > automatically have it anyway. > > I'd like to settle on one specific name for that timestamp, though, and > finalize it soon before I have too many nodes the other way. >
I'm afraid my preference and use case on this will complicate rather than simplify. You have to do what works for you, but what I personally am interested in is the date I first wrote the thought plus the date modified. But to make it considerably worse, the items I want to import originated over a 25 year period. It is meaningful and helpful to me to know the date I wrote it. Somewhere in the process I will obviously have to enter original dates by hand for everything except a new unit for a new thought. I accept that. There is no way to automate it. The system's automated time stamp when the item is created is fine for a new thought, though uniform format for both situations would be nice. Personally, though American, I have gotten used to the European date format: YYMMDD and have come to prefer it. I've used it in filenames as well as internally in files for about five years now (actually I hyphenate it: YY-MM-DD). But that's just me. You must do what works for you. Bottom line is you must work within the limitations of Leo and also your time and interest budget for this project. I already know and accept that my personal vision for all that would go into my own optimal system is way too ambitious for the scope of this project. Another ugly and inconvenient question: Are you contemplating a command to automate starting a new zettel (is it ok to use that term for the time being? I gather you plan to find a new term.)? Sorry to bring it up again, but one of the key things for me is to be able to launch a new zettel in an instant, without required steps before I can start writing. I am suspicious that if I have to type in three or four headings, decide upon titles, etc, in order to create a new zettel, that I might end up not using the system. Currently all I do to start a new thought is skip a line and write. I never have to shift attention to accomplishing a mechanical process before I can start writing the new thought. For my very peculiar (and inconvenient) profile of creative thought process I need it to be very nearly that simple, quick and non-distracting. It's this kind of thing that leads me to say you must do what works for you. I think even trying to meet some of my nastier requirements would impose way too much load for what you are able to invest in this project. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/2f81de6f-c10a-443c-b38a-fad91899999d%40googlegroups.com.
