Hello, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes:
> No, I meant context of application, rather than context in the > syntactical sense. Org-element-* deals with syntax, nothing else. > Whether you need strict syntactical interpretation or something else > gets decided someplace else. OK. Then we agree here. > Whatever it sounds like, what you want in the clocktables example and > the properties example (and elsewhere) is something that looks, walks > and talks like a timestamp if you'd put it into the proper context. In > each of these places the text that looks like timestamp but isn't > (org-element says so) will be fed into some machinery that emerges with > a result that is indistinguishable from what you'd get if that text > would have been a proper timestamp and then uses that result to do > whatever it wants to do with it (i.e. most certainly not build up an > agenda, although it could do that as well). It uses a bit of Org syntax > in the improper context to achieve this (and this requires precisely to > ignore that context or at least check with something more loose than > org-element). I also agree, but it seems to contradict what you write below. > In a comment that timestamp-looking text doesn't have any function, so > it's in a different category, I must insist. As I said, I can see > somebody wanting to have this text be editable like any other timestamp > also, but it's really the other uses where it's used meta-syntactically > that I'd like to focus on. Here, I don't follow you anymore. A timestamp in a comment is "something that looks, walks and talks like a timestamp if you'd put it into the proper context", too. So there's no difference with properties or the clock table. > One of the differences to text in comments (or generally quoted > material) is that there is an expectation that this sort of timestamp > is correct, since they are intended to be input to further processing. True, but if that timestamps isn't correct, it doesn't "look, walk and talk" like a timestamp anymore, so this doesn't apply to the above. Anyway, I think we're digressing. We're talking about design, yet, to tell the truth, I don't even know anymore what the original, concrete, problem is really about. As I asked 5 weeks ago (!), could you provide an ECM demonstrating the issue so that I can fix it, in the light of our discussion? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
