Re: [O] New exporter and dates in tables

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Bastien <address@hidden> writes:

> I would find it both cleaner and more useful for users to extend
> `org-export-with-timestamps' with three choices:
>
>   'inactive-not-standalone
>     'active-not-standalone
>            'not-standalone

This is a different idea. The change would happen at the exporter level,
not at parser's.

> When set to 'not-standalone, it means export time-stamps except
> "standone time-stamps", i.e. those who are alone on a line.

Well, parsing is not line based, and "a timestamp alone on a line"
doesn't mean much. Though, "a timestamp alone in a paragraph" is much
easier to translate. IOW:

  <2013-04-13 Sat>
  is not a standalone timestamp (use M-q).

but,

  <2013-04-13 Sat>

  is a standalone timestamp.

> That's the set-up most users will want after t, it fits the habits
> that Bernt has been describing, and it's useful for users who wants to
> get rid of the planning-like active time-stamp right below the
> headline.
>
> Also, it's easier to explain users how to set this up (through
> the docstring) than to explain why time-stamps are not removed in
> tables with (setq org-export-with-timestamps nil).

If we agree to the "alone in a paragraph" part, I can implement it.

But we still need exceptions for clocks and timestamps (i.e., ignore
`org-export-with-timestamps' value when `org-export-with-planning' or
`org-export-with-clocks' is non-nil).


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou