Creation / completion date #3
Replies: 5 comments 8 replies
-
for example: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@jotaen : in this case, why would the due date have a special syntax? Actually, having a
So, what about having tags for everything instead? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think you are on point with leaving Due Date as the main, supported glyphed date, and leaving other dates up to users and tools via tags. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I prefer another syntax for dates. People can always use tags if they want anyway. Some ideas: Ordered as startDate, dueDate, resolveDate
Ordered as resolveDate, startDate, dueDate may have more sense for syntax 3 & 4: This variant would be most compatible
In this case start date is missing and resolveDate is first. I honestly like the first one the best:
Reasons:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Dropping in with my own two cents. I was inspired by this spec to start writing a tui for managing my own text-based todos, and I'm coming up against this issue now.
these |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
There are basically 3 dates in the lifecycle of a todo item:
The most important one in practice is the due date, which is why [x]it! supports it.
I’m not sure, though, whether there should be any special syntax for the other two dates, because that would create a lot of noise. Also, a tool could still add these dates somewhere in the description text. That way, they wouldn’t be recognised or treated specially, but they would be there “for the protocol”.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions