Hi Esben,
The way that org-contacts currently works is that contact details are
grouped together in the same PROPERTIES drawer, e.g.
* Alexis
:PROPERTIES:
:EMAIL: ale...@example.com
:PHONE: -
:END:
and that's what i've assumed in my MobileOrg code for parsing
org-contacts data. i imag
Esben Stien writes:
Then you could do:
* Hukarz
:PROPERTIES:
:ORGTYPE: contact
:END
** EMAIL
*** f...@bar.bz
:PROPERTIES:
:EMAILTYPE: business0
:ID: 000
:END:
This dude uses this for business, but actually send him mail via
private email, cause he sees that after business hours as well;
Esben Stien writes:
> * Hukarz
> :PROPERTIES:
> :TRANSFER:
> :[LINKTOKARLJUNIOR]:
>:EMAIL: bar
>:ADDRESS:
>:PHONE:
> :[LINKTOYOURSELF]:
>:EMAIL: baz
> :END:
Or how about just make the heading a type contact? That would be
infinitely more useful.
* Hukarz
:PROPERTIES:
:OR
Esben Stien writes:
> We can't use a hierarchy?
Well, no, sorry!
--
Bastien
Karl Voit writes:
> It's set: my first properties will be:
>
> :ITOLDTHEM_EMAIL:
> :ITOLDTHEM_ADDRESS:
> :ITOLDTHEM_PHONE:
We can't use a hierarchy?
* Hukarz
:PROPERTIES:
:TRANSFER:
:[LINKTOKARLJUNIOR]:
:EMAIL: bar
:ADDRESS:
:PHONE:
:[LINKTOYOURSELF]:
:EMAIL: baz
:E
* Robert Horn wrote:
>
> My first reaction was to use a short sentence like "itoldthem". I can't
> think of any single english word that doesn't also need a subject to
> describe which direction the transfer went.
I love it :-)
It's set: my first properties will be:
:ITOLDTHEM_EMAIL:
:
* Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> Is this a prefix for multiple values? Ie, it will be "XXX_email",
> "XXX_cell", "XXX_phone" and so on?
Yes.
> I think the word "context" is pretty
> relevant here; you might consider something like "CONTEXT_EMAIL" or
> "CONTEXT_MY_EMAIL".
>
> Just a thought.
I agre
Karl Voit writes:
> * David Rogers wrote:
>>
>> I agree that this kind of simple thing looks like a better
>> idea. However, it would also be nice to be able to call it some name
>> where a person who encounters the software capability but doesn't yet
>> know what it's for will understand what i
Karl Voit writes:
> * David Rogers wrote:
>>
>> I agree that this kind of simple thing looks like a better
>> idea. However, it would also be nice to be able to call it some name
>> where a person who encounters the software capability but doesn't yet
>> know what it's for will understand what i
* David Rogers wrote:
>
> I agree that this kind of simple thing looks like a better
> idea. However, it would also be nice to be able to call it some name
> where a person who encounters the software capability but doesn't yet
> know what it's for will understand what it's for just from reading t
Perhaps relaxing the understandability requirement in favor of
searchability would work.
Samuel Wales writes:
> Provided? Given?
I agree that this kind of simple thing looks like a better
idea. However, it would also be nice to be able to call it some name
where a person who encounters the software capability but doesn't yet
know what it's for will understand what it's for just fro
Provided? Given?
--
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. ANYBODY can get it.
Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.
Hi!
I want to extend my (IMHO already advanced) org-contacts setup with
information I gave *to* companies about myself: what email address I
gave them (I own a catch-all email domain)[1], what address they
stored about me (in case I am moving and want to update), what phone
number they got of me (
14 matches
Mail list logo
