"Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes: > Hi Suvayu, > > suvayu ali wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Sebastien Vauban >> <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> wrote: >>>> Another idea would be to introduce another keyword like APPT an place >>>> these time stamps also into the second line. That might be more easy to >>>> implement. >>> >>> FWIW, my instinctive reaction would be: yes, great! Maybe that clarifies >>> the bits around dates: all active dates get keywords, only inactive ones >>> are without any keyword. >> >> Yes, this would be a nice addition. I always find it difficult to decide how >> to put regular timestamps too. > > By regular timestamps, you mean: inactive timestamps?
I think he means active timestamps with no keyword. The Org FAQ and manual refer to active timestamps with no keyword as "plain timestamps". > Can you, maybe, comment on what makes the decision difficult? At least for me, in my early Org days, I wasn't sure of the best formatting convention for "plain timestamps". I settled on putting them on the line directly after the header with the proper indentation, since this is how SCHEDULED items were inserted. Regards, Jason
