Re: [Orgmode] checkbox problem

[Sebastian Rose]

Hi Thomas,



Lists depend entirely on indentation.

Sidenote:

For long mails and similar texts I use a drawer:


  (setq org-drawers (quote ("PROPERTIES" "CLOCK" "PHONE" "EMAIL"
    "REMAIL" "HIDDEN" "LOGBOOK"))) 

:EMAIL: and :REMAIL: are the ones I use for mails from and to
customers.




  Sebastian



"Thomas S. Dye" <address@hidden> writes:
> Aloha all,
>
> First, org-mode is really useful.  The more I use it, the more useful it gets
> and the more I appreciate its flexibility.  I've been using it  for several
> months but still feel like a newbie.  Perhaps the problem  I'm having stems 
> from
> this.
>
> I use the checkbox feature a lot, with good effect, like this:
>
> *** Task 1 [/]
>       - [ ] Step 1
>       - [ ] Step 2
>       - [ ] Step 3
>
> Recently, I received via email comments from 4 reviewers on a paper I'd
> submitted for publication.  The editor asked me to keep track of  how I'd
> responded to all of the comments, so I tried this:
>
> *** Reviewer 1 [/]
>       - [ ] Comment 1
>       - [ ] Comment 2
> etc.
>
> I cut the comments out of the email message and pasted them directly into the
> org file in Aquamacs Emacs.  Some of the comments are quite  lengthy, others 
> are
> short.
>
> My problem is that midway down a list of comments org-mode ceases to recognize
> that the comment checkboxes are associated with the  heading.  In each case, 
> the
> last comment checkbox that is correctly  associated with the heading formats
> differently (with Esc-Q) than the  comments above it.  The comment checkboxes
> that are associated  correctly format as indented blocks with the second and
> subsequent  lines of text left justified on the "[" of the first line.  The 
> last
> associated checkbox justifies the second and subsequent lines two  characters
> left of the "-" of the first line.  Subsequent,  unassociated checkboxes align
> the "-" of the first line with last line  of the item above it.  Here is an
> example:
>
>
> *** Reviewer 3 [2/6]
>
> ... (Several items omitted)
>
>     - [X] p. 7 In 1779, Kamehameha was a young man on his way up as a
>       favored nephew of Kalaniopu`u, but isn't it a little early to
>       refer to his dynasty?
>     - [X] p. 7 It is true Kamehameha benefited greatly from Western
>   advice and weapons, but the tradition of conquest was well
>   established by the time he embarked on his career as a conqueror by
>   chiefs including Kalaniopu`u, and especially Kahekili.
>   - [X] p. 7 According to traditions 'Umi's father had been recognized
>     as paramount of the island.  `Umi regained his father's status by
>     putting down a rebellion of the five districts other than Hamakua
>     and reunited the polity.  I think of this as a civil war rather
>     than the capture of territory to which he had no previous claim.
>
> In this case the first two items are counted in the headline, but the last one
> isn't.
>
> If someone could point out what might be going wrong, I'll appreciate it.
>
> All the best,
> Tom