Hi Jason, Jason Dunsmore wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> writes: >> suvayu ali wrote: >>> 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.
OK. I thought the difficult decision was about the type of timestamps: SCHEDULED, not SCHEDULED but active, or inactive. Now, I understand he meant about the positioning of the timestamp itself. Thanks for clarifying this. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
