Re: Footnotes and org-export, revisited

[Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>]

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 <dominik@science.uva.nl> 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