Re: footnote export fails if footnote indented

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

On 2010-04-16, Dan Davison <davison@stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Here are 2 test cases for footnotes.  Perhaps they can be put in a
>> test directory somewhere if they are useful.
>
> Hi Samuel,
>
> Thanks. You have obviously thought about this a lot more carefully than
> me. Is there any chance you could run your test files with Carsten's
> patch, with the footnote definitions tab indented away from the left
> margin, and report on whether the patch introduces any new problems? I
> did quickly try exporting your file but I wasn't sure how to interpret
> the output.

For health reasons, I cannot at this time.

>
> Dan
>
>>
>> My old relatively thorough test case with 11 specific documented
>> points to test for:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode@gnu.org/msg10877.html
>>
>> And my recent one, sloppily put together and reproduced here:
>>
>> * top
>> *** an article
>> sadfkaj sdnfklaj nsfklandsf
>> asd flkajnd sfa
>> *** an article.  exporting this to ascii does not export anonymous
>> footnotes
>> I sometimes[fn:3] mix regular[fn:1] footnotes and inline
>> [fn:: There are issues here.  For example, I have to type
>> them in manually.  You cannot leave empty; it won't accept
>> it.  Maybe it has to do with my ido setup.  Exporting this
>> to ASCII seems to silent fail.  I tried "fn:: text" and
>> "fn::text".] ones[fn:2].
>>
>> ===
>>
>> [fn:1] ordinary.  note that if you put point here and do c-c
>> c-c, you will get sent to the next article, which is
>> disconcerting.  i expected it to go up to the thing that
>> points to it.  this situation, where you have duplicate
>> footnote numbers in the same file, but different org
>> entries, is very common when you refile an article.
>> \par
>> don't know how to separate paragraphs in a footnote in
>> a way that fill-paragraph with filladapt will understand.
>> would be nice if a way were possible, imo.
>>
>> [fn:2] another
>>
>> [fn:3] a third
>> # a comment
>> *** another article
>> ordinary [fn:1], inline[fn:This is a test.], and
>> regular[fn:2] footnotes.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> [fn:1] regular
>>
>> [fn:2] usual
>> *** another article
>> asdfj alkdfn akljdn fklajdf
>> askdfn al;ksjnf lajdnf klajdnf
>> skjdhflakjdnf klajnf [fn:1]
>>
>> [fn:1] test
>> *** another article
>> asdknf lakjdnf ak
>> asdkjfn aldjf
>>
>>
>> On 2010-04-16, Dan Davison <davison@stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I hadn't forgotten about this but I have been conscious that I wasn't
>>> giving it the testing it deserved. I don't export with footnotes that
>>> much, and when I do it tends to be to HTML. So I haven't noticed any
>>> problems, but perhaps some others who use footnotes more seriously than
>>> me could test out this patch for a bit? Sorry, I know I should have sent
>>> this email ages ago!
>


-- 
Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years]
==========
Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html