Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[ST]

Hello,

in the manual

https://orgmode.org/manual/Footnotes.html#Footnotes

it says that footnotes[fn:1]

[fn:1] look like this


but actually[1] 

[1] works as well and looks even better.

So why this option is not documented?

Thank you!

Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 662 bytes --]

Hello,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:27 PM ST <smntov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> in the manual
>
> https://orgmode.org/manual/Footnotes.html#Footnotes
>
> it says that footnotes[fn:1]
>
> [fn:1] look like this
>
>
> but actually[1]
>
> [1] works as well and looks even better.
>
> So why this option is not documented?
>

I would think that's so because canonically Org mode using [fn:1] style. It
looks like you are manually typing the footnote refs and definitions.

Try using C-c C-x f binding.. you will see that Org inserts the footnotes
in the documented style.

I would say that the "fn"-style footnotes remove any kind of ambiguity..
-- 

Kaushal Modi

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1256 bytes --]

Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> writes:

> I would think that's so because canonically Org mode using [fn:1] style. It
> looks like you are manually typing the footnote refs and definitions.
>
> Try using C-c C-x f binding.. you will see that Org inserts the footnotes
> in the documented style.
>
> I would say that the "fn"-style footnotes remove any kind of
> ambiguity..

Moreover, [1]-like footnotes have been removed in 9.0. It's a bug if Org
thinks [1] is a footnote.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[ST]

On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 14:31 -0400, Kaushal Modi wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:27 PM ST <smntov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>         Hello,
>         
>         in the manual
>         
>         https://orgmode.org/manual/Footnotes.html#Footnotes
>         
>         it says that footnotes[fn:1]
>         
>         [fn:1] look like this
>         
>         
>         but actually[1] 
>         
>         [1] works as well and looks even better.
>         
>         So why this option is not documented?
> 
> 
> I would think that's so because canonically Org mode using [fn:1]
> style. It looks like you are manually typing the footnote refs and
> definitions.
> 
> 
> Try using C-c C-x f binding.. you will see that Org inserts the
> footnotes in the documented style.
> 
> 
> I would say that the "fn"-style footnotes remove any kind of
> ambiguity.. 

It's true that [1] alone may very well introduce ambiguity, but why not
to take something more lightweight and language/alphabet independent,
like [^1]?

1. It's three times shorter (its important if you type manually in
GitLab/GitHub without the C-c C-x f binding);
2. If you type in another language - you don't have to switch the
keyboard;
3. If your text is in another alphabet - latin "fn" disturbs the eye.
4. It feels a bit heavy as a markup for the lightweight org .

(a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new
feature?
(b) How can I define such syntax by my own as a footnote?

Thank you!

Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

ST <smntov@gmail.com> writes:

> (a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new
> feature?

I sympathize with your concern, and [^1] may not have been a bad choice
when footnotes were introduced, but that ship has sailed long ago.

There is enough footnote syntax in Org nowadays. I'd rather keep it that
way.

> (b) How can I define such syntax by my own as a footnote?

You may have to tweak some libraries, e.g., org-footnote.el and
org-element.el, but you're on your own here.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[ST]

Hello,
> 
> > (a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new
> > feature?
> 
> I sympathize with your concern, and [^1] may not have been a bad choice
> when footnotes were introduced, but that ship has sailed long ago.
> 
> There is enough footnote syntax in Org nowadays.

I saw only "fn:" related variations in the docs...

>  I'd rather keep it that
> way.

Even if somebody else implements this and provides a patch?...

Thank you!

Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

ST <smntov@gmail.com> writes:

> I saw only "fn:" related variations in the docs...

Indeed, but every variation needs to be handled specifically, so it
ultimately counts as a different syntax.

> Even if somebody else implements this and provides a patch?...

Yes, please. This is a matter of design, not implementation. I'd like to
stabilize Org syntax as much as possible.

As a rule of thumb, I would only consider syntax changes only for:
1. broken syntax
2. missing feature
3. syntax hindering compatibility (e.g., conditional syntax)

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou