On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 16:43, Christopher Allan Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote: > Michael Brand <michael.ch.br...@gmail.com> writes: >> * _appointment_ that _occurs_ at bike shop (keyword inside drawer) >> :PROPERTIES: >> :TIMESTAMP: <2011-04-12 Tue 19:00> >> :END: >> * _appointment_ that _occurs_ at bike shop (keyword outside drawer) >> :TIMESTAMP: <2011-04-12 Tue 19:00> >> * _appointment_ that _occurs_ at bike shop (keyword-less, at least for >> backward compatibility) >> <2011-04-12 Tue 19:00> > > Interesting, I like that style. My main concern is that newer orgmode > files written in this form might break in older versions of orgmode.
Are your concerns concrete? I have thought about and tested this already before: The three example items above show up in the agenda, and are still correct even after changing with `S->'. So this "newer/future" Org file format works even with the "older/today" Org software. This is because the Org software of today flexibly binds the special property TIMESTAMP per item to the first active timestamp (i. e. "<>", not "[]") that is not prefixed with `SCHEDULED: ' or `DEADLINE: '. This binding is the reason why I would stick to the name TIMESTAMP when it comes to possibly new features that should write this special property keyword explicitly for this kind of timestamp. The sibling (not `C-c .') of `C-c C-s'/`C-c C-d' that you suggested originally would be such a feature. Michael
