Hi Eric! > -----Original Message----- > From: Fraga, Eric <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> > Sent: den 1 juni 2019 15:18 > To: Gustav Wikström <gus...@whil.se> > Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [O] Proposal for new document-level syntax > > For me, however, your proposed structure would clash strongly with my > usual working practice. Specifically, I put all customizations and > settings at the end of my documents, along with, for instance, Emacs > file local variables. These are things I do not change often and > usually don't care to see. At the start of the document, however, is > the real content. So, I don't particularly like the idea of having > settings etc. *before* the content in my files.
Point taken. File local variables potitions would not be affected of course. And to be honest, I don't see any existing keyword going away any time soon either. So your workflow probably won't be affected for a long time. Unless you choose to! With that said, I'd still like to argue a bit more for the structure I've presented. The idea with having drawers is exactly the point you're also making; that it makes configuration go out of the way for real content. I question the disctraction 1-2 rows provide. Take for example the way current property drawer and planning-properties work on outline-nodes. They have fixed positions at the top of the node and take up maximum two rows when declared. Not really an issue in my book and the benefit of fixed positions is easy parsing for both humans and the machine. The same would apply for document settings and properties. Take the example below: #+begin_example :SETTINGS:... :PROPERTIES:... ,* Heading 1 DEADLINE: <2019-06-02 Sun> SCHEDULED: <2019-06-01 Sat> :PROPERTIES:... lorem ,* Heading 2 Ipsum ,# -*- mode: org -*- #+end_example To me it makes perfect sense to have the drawers at the top at fixed positions. It follows current convention for headlines. At most two rows before the real content is hopefully a compromize that can be made for syntactic clarity and simplicity. And personally it would be a great improvement over the current way document-level keywords work. > > Just by 2¢. Thanks!
