Re: [O] [RFC] Document level property drawer

[Marco Wahl]

Gustav Wikström <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> Sooo, a separate branch is created in the Org mode repository named
> "next". I'm not entirely sure how we're supposed to work with it. But
> I've anyways pushed my (non-breaking) patch there.

Okay, thanks.  I try to follow the development on the 'next' branch.

[...]

>> Noteworthy observations AFAICT:
>>
>> 1. I could not translate my personal "#+TODO: . N ~ | x c g >" into a
>> respective :TODO: property.
>
> Yes, that's true. The reason is that there is no TODO-property that
> fits in property drawers right now. I.e. special properties such as
> TODO, TAGS, priority, scheduling and deadlines that have special
> syntax for the outline still have no defined meaning for outline level
> 0. I ofc. think that's an oversight ;) But I may also be a bit crazy.
>
> A conclusion to draw from that, that may be worth writing more about,
> is that the property drawer for node level 0 will not be able to
> replace all file-level keywords that exist today.  Only properties that
> currently can also be defined in property drawers in the outline will
> work in the property drawer on level 0.  Makes sense?

Absolutely.

> The idea I had for all the other keywords that apply for the whole
> file was to create another drawer, what I called a settings drawer.
> Because the TODO-keyword you refer to above really is a setting that
> you're making for the current file, much the same as when you make
> changes in global, folder local or file local variables using the
> standard emacs framework.

The idea of a settings drawer makes sense AFAICS.

For the special case of TODO-keywords one could think about defining
them per subtree.  Possibly there are some low hanging fruit among the
whole-file-properties that have a natural interpretation per subtree.

> I've attached an investigation I did of the world of Org mode
> keywords. It was done quite a while back and some things in there are
> subjective and may not represent my current picture of the "ideal".
> Nonetheless, maybe an interesting read for the ... other crazy people
> out there?

Okay, I'll have a look at your investigation. ;)

BTW this document looks great to me at the first glance.


Thanks,
-- 
Marco