Re: [O] New exporter and dates in tables

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Bastien <address@hidden> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Thinking more about it, I think I need to make some more exceptions
>> anyway. For example timestamps in clock lines and in planning info
>> shouldn't react to `org-export-with-timestamps' (it would be silly to
>> have `org-export-with-planning' set to t and still see nothing because
>> `org-export-with-timestamps' is nil).
>
> Indeed :)
>
> Thinking again about Bernt's use-case and Carsten's feedback, 
> I suggest making rules for planning instead of exceptions for
> time-stamps.
>
> - planning information is
>   - SCHEDULED: <time-stamp>
>   - DEADLINE: <time-stamp>
>   - CLOSED: <time-stamp>
>   - one or more time-stamps (active or inactive) alone on a line
>
> - a non-planning time-stamp is any time-stamp that does not fall
>   into the categories above, i.e. if it is inlined in an element
>   (usually a paragraph or a table).

SCHEDULED and friends define a property in the associated headline.
Generic timestamps don't (excepted for the first one, but it's arbitrary
and the parser ignores it anyway).

Also, there can be as many active timestamps in a section, but there can
be only one planning info element.

Therefore, I don't think they belong to the same category. We ought to
treat them differently, like we do at the moment.

> The inactive/active time-stamp in a table is handled.
>
> And so is another corner case that we did not discussed yet:
> people using active time-stamps right below a headline, with
> the expectation that this time-stamp will bring the entry up
> in the agenda -- such time-stamp is now considered a time-stamp
> while it is really some planning info.

This is obviously some planning info, but not a "planning-info" element.
Any active timestamp is a planning info by the way. The "planning-info"
term just defines the line with SCHEDULED, DEADLINE, CLOSED keyword. It
may be silly, be a name had to be chosen.

Anyway, I don't think it's a corner case.

> I guess this is cleaner than creating exceptions.
>
> What about it?

I'd rather create the aforementioned exceptions (in tables but more
importantly in planning info and clocks): it is important to distinguish
"planning-info" from a mere timestamp. We can change the name if it's
confusing, though.

Is that OK with you?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou