I've updated the webpage at: http://www.cognition.ens.fr/~guerry/emacs-planner-org.html
This is still not very readable but I plan to improve it. Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was referring to blorg (or whatever it was that dto now uses). I got > the impression that it wasn't distributed with Org (in Emacs trunk) > yet, hence "in development". I doubt either blorg.el or org-blog.el will ever be part of Org/Emacs. But true: blorg.el does export an Org file along with it's RSS feed. > I don't have the time. Just look at the names of the Planner source > files as a start. Okay - just check on the webpage for possible mistakes. > Specific example: http://genehack.org/2004/09/21 > More examples: http://swik.net/planner.el+gtd Added, thanks. Org is far behind in terms of web visibility, I hope will catch up with this at some point. >> Timestamps? > > I'm not convinced that this is a useful feature. Surely there's a minor > mode for simple insertion of timestamps. I should have said timestamps manipulation. For example, behing able to quickly insert something like <2007-09-29 sam 13:00>, to update it, to make it a active/scheduled/deadline timestamp. The way Org lets you go through the calendar, pick up a date in the future, add "13:00" for making this date an appointment... all this is at the very heart of Org's daily use. >> Can you explain this a bit further? > > Using task IDs, Planner can update changes made to a task on one page to > instances of the same task on different pages. It's really nifty, and > it is one of the things that really makes Planner work well. Right. But Org's people don't have the same tasks on different files. So they don't need such a workaround :) > I'm a fan of the modular approach: only load what you really need. It > avoids confusion by people who are just starting to use a project. Org > tends to put most of its functionality into org.el rather than > splitting it out. Unless you consider *all* of org.el to be "core > functionality". Honestly, I cannot think of a single feature that should not be considered "core" feature for Org. Even features that might be considered minor (e.g. the possibility to use abbrevs for links) are so closely related to the general links approach that it wouldn't make sense to put them in some modular file. This is entirely personal, but one thing that let me progressively slip away from planner was the maintainability of its configuration. I tried to keep it very minimal, but I always had to add/remove requirements... > That's not the same thing. The Elisp in those Org links don't get > evaluated at display time -- they get evaluated when you click on them. Right. But isn't this a bit dangerous? I mean: just like local variables and evals might be dangerous. Org lets you add local variables and lisp code will be executed from here. For dynamic parts of the page, Org has dynamic blocks: http://orgmode.org/org.html#Dynamic-blocks The cool thing about them is that you can share them. I don't know any such repository, but it would be useful. > I don't think Org bothers to escape characters that are special to > LaTeX in its published documents (though ICBW -- it's been a while > since I looked at it). It took a *lot* of work to get that right for > Muse, since there are so many contexts where one must escape > differently, such as links vs. normal document text vs. filenames of > images. I've been coding org-export-latex.el so I know a bit about what a nightmare it could be to handle escaped characters/strings. And this issue is very complicated in Org, especially because it can handle so many LaTeX constructs natively. So, yes, Org knows about escaping chars, at least both in the HTML and LaTeX exports. By the way, Org has #+HTML lines and #+BEGIN_HTML/#+END_HTML to let you insert HTML-export-only code. I guess do you have something similar, is it documented somewhere? > Additionally, Planner can do inline LaTeX: just > > (require 'muse-latex2png) Can you use this infile? Org do this with dvipng, and lets you see LaTeX formulas in the Org buffer directly. > use the <latex> or <math> tags. It's much better than using "$" and > "$$", in my opinion, since it's then more clear to non-LaTeX people > exactly what kind of content you are publishing. Org using $ and $$ is the origin of the problems one might have when converting files to LaTeX. But AFAIK, it's okay in org-export-latex and I found this readable. Having a more readable <math> tag is still an option. > I imagine that people would probably trip over the Org syntax if they > were writing a lot of monetary amounts ("$100, $200", etc.), but I > could be wrong. Regexps are safe on this. No complaints so far! Thanks for your answer and time. I think I'm done with a decent comparison table, unless you say I forgot something of importance. -- Bastien _______________________________________________ Planner-el-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/planner-el-discuss
