Re: org-html: subtree specific footnote references

[Suhail Shergill <suhailshergill@gmail.com>]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Suhail Shergill <suhailshergill@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> running org-export-as-html on a subtree is currently problematic if
>>>>> the result is to be merged into a document which contains html-ized
>>>>> versions of other subtrees: the footnote references and definitions
>>>>> get clobbered.
>>>
>>> Do the subtrees come from the same org file?
>>
>> that is the use case, yes.
>
> Try marking the subtrees with :export: tag.  Lookup the following in the
> mailing list, worg or the info manual.
>
>      #+EXPORT_SELECT_TAGS:   Tags that select a tree for export
>      #+EXPORT_EXCLUDE_TAGS:  Tags that exclude a tree from export
>
> With this, do footnotes come out along the expected lines?

*if* you were to generate the entire file again, things will be fine yes. i'm
talking about a scenario where for one reason or another you may not want to do
that, but may instead only want to export the most recent subtree which has been
added (since the last time it was exported). earlier when you tried to do that,
the footnote links would no longer work because of name attribute
collisions. this patch provides a way to prevent that.

>>> Won't it look odd and confusing to a reader, when there are two
>>> different footnote definitions with the same number. 
>>
>> yes i agree that would be very confusing. but why, pray tell, would
>> there be two different definitions with the same number?
>
> <a>you haven't modified the description have you?</a>

no, i haven't. also, you could look at the patch. the code is pretty
self-explanatory.

>>> Confusion is like to be pronounced, if the reader chooses to also print out
>>> the document as a pdf or into paper.
>>
>> the *only* behavioural change that this effects is that the links (and backlinks
>> from the definitions to references) will continue to work properly even in the
>> event the user decides to merge the result of multiple subtree exports into one
>> single document.
>
> Links are visible when stuff is printed out on paper.  Is it?

not sure what you mean by this. are links visible when you print them? yes,
unless you're using invisible ink. the patch (if you cared to look) modifies the
name attribute of the a tags in question (footnote definition and footnote
references). the text within the a tag (the bit that is actually rendered on
screen/print) is unchanged.

-- 
Suhail