>> Sebastian Miele writes:
>>> I would like to be able to make a clear distinction between properties
>>> that are visible by default and properties that are not. Maybe it would
>>> be possible to allow some #+.. syntax following headings for subtree
>>> properties that are visible by default.
Marco Wahl writes:
> Sebastian Miele writes:
>
>> But for such properties to satisfactorily work for me, they would have
>> to be visible by default. E.g. I would want the header-args to be
>> immediately visible just like they are when they are written after
>> #+BEGIN_SRC or #+HEADER. Otherwis
Sebastian Miele writes:
> But for such properties to satisfactorily work for me, they would have
> to be visible by default. E.g. I would want the header-args to be
> immediately visible just like they are when they are written after
> #+BEGIN_SRC or #+HEADER. Otherwise I would find myself consta
Hi,
> One issue for me is the positioning of the level 0 property drawer.
> Having the requirement for that drawer starting in the very first
> line is too strong for me. I guess one would at least like to have
> the option to add some configuration with the ‘-*-...-*-’ construct
> which currently
>> One issue for me is the positioning of the level 0 property drawer.
>> Having the requirement for that drawer starting in the very first
>> line is too strong for me. I guess one would at least like to have
>> the option to add some configuration with the ‘-*-...-*-’ construct
>> which currently
Hi,
> One issue for me is the positioning of the level 0 property drawer.
> Having the requirement for that drawer starting in the very first
> line is too strong for me. I guess one would at least like to have
> the option to add some configuration with the ‘-*-...-*-’ construct
> which currently
