From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Footnotes and org-export, revisited Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 08:39:41 +0100 Message-ID: <7809176C-468C-41CC-8946-372D792445C9@uva.nl> References: <3051994A-5B12-4497-AB58-BAF9A70020D8@uva.nl> <5E498B46-C3D1-4BF6-AD0E-4F416CD72EE9@uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJNaP-0006Ap-Lm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:39:49 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJNaL-0006AM-Rm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:39:49 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56681 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJNaL-0006AH-LI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:39:45 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f13.google.com ([209.85.219.13]:36429) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LJNaK-0003c6-TK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:39:45 -0500 Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so7677687ewy.18 for ; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:39:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Matthew Lundin Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Fixed, thanks. - Carsten On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote: > > Hi Carsten, > > Thanks for the quick response. I've written a couple of additional > comments below. > > Carsten Dominik writes: > >> Hi Matt, thanks for this much needed feedback. I was already working >> into the direction of some of your proposals, but certainly not all. >> >> On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for alerting me to this option. I'm assuming that >>> org-footnote-section is meant to control the initial placement of >>> non-inline footnotes and not their placement after sorting or >>> normalizing. (When I sort or normalize the footnotes, they are >>> placed >>> at the end of the last section of the outline.) Would it be possible >>> to have this option also control the placement of sorted footnotes? >>> I.e., during sorting or normalizing, footnotes would be placed in >>> the >>> outline section corresponding to their reference. >> >> Yes, this would be much more consistent. Now it does this, >> sorting will move each definition to the entry of the first >> reference, if org-footnote-section is nil. >> > > This is great! I did notice a couple of quirks when > org-footnote-section is set to nil. > > A. If there is no empty line at the end of a section or the end of the > buffer, org-footnote-action inserts the footnote above the reference. > As in the following example: > > ----begin org file----- > * Headline one > > [fn:1] Org-footnote-action inserts footnote above the reference. > > A footnote inserted with no space the bottom of a section.[fn:1] > * Headline two > One empty line at the bottom of this section.[fn:2] > > [fn:2] > > * Headline three > > [fn:3] Again, same behavior as first footnote. > > No space at the bottom of buffer.[fn:3] > ----end org file----- > > B. If one of the footnotes is directly above a headline (i.e., no > intervening empty line), it does not get sorted with C-u C-c C-x f s. > > -----begin original org file----- > > * Headline one > > Here is a footnote.[fn:1] And here is another footnote.[fn:2] And here > is a third footnote.[fn:3] > > [fn:3] Footnote three > > [fn:1] Footnote one. > > [fn:2] Footnote two. > * Headline two > > -----end original org file------- > > And after sorting: > > -----begin sorted footnotes file------ > > * Headline one > > Here is a footnote.[fn:1] And here is another footnote.[fn:2] And here > is a third footnote.[fn:3] > > [fn:1] Footnote one. > > [fn:3] Footnote three > > [fn:2] Footnote two. > * Headline two > > -----end sorted footnotes file------ > > >>> C. The in-buffer conversion from inline footnotes to numbered >>> footnotes is fantastic for creating readable documents. It might >>> be a >>> nice feature to have a similar conversion in reverse: that is, from >>> non-inline footnotes to inline footnotes? >>> >>> The chief rationale for such a feature would be to make footnotes >>> portable from one org-mode file to another. >> >> Isn't the new sorting good enough for this? I am uncomfortable with >> letting a program doing so much complex editing. I think it will >> break too often. > > Yes, I see how this could be a very dangerous feature, since if it > breaks, it might have ruinous effects. And I see that this would be > redundant, as the sorting option already accomplishes this quite > nicely. > >> Thanks, please keep testing and the feedback coming. > > I most certainly will! > > At the risk of sounding like a broken record, thanks again for all > your work on org-mode! > > Matt