From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: HTML Export - Footnotes inconcistency
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 19:39:00 +0200
Message-ID: <8736tpzhvv.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <87k1n5ssnp.fsf@mpaulmier.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35117)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1g72A0-0000a4-HB
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:39:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1g729v-0004Cx-FD
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:39:08 -0400
Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.230]:43311)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>)
	id 1g729v-0004Bk-5s
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:39:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87k1n5ssnp.fsf@mpaulmier.home> (Matthias Paulmier's message of
	"Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:39:06 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Matthias Paulmier <matthias.paulmier@etu.u-bordeaux.fr>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Matthias Paulmier <matthias.paulmier@etu.u-bordeaux.fr> writes:

> I came across this problem today (or maybe it is intended but I couldn't
> find any explanation in the docs). There is an inconsistency on how
> inline/anonymous and named footnotes are exported in HTML. For example,
> with the following source:
>
> #+TITLE: Testing footnotes
> #+LANGUAGE: en
>
> Testing[fn::test1] footnotes[fn:2]
>
> [fn:2] test2
>
>
> Exports to this :
>
> <h2 class="footnotes">Footnotes: </h2>
> <div id="text-footnotes">
>
> <div class="footdef"><sup><a id="fn.1" class="footnum"
> href="#fnr.1">1</a></sup> <div class="footpara">test1</div></div>
>
> <div class="footdef"><sup><a id="fn.2" class="footnum"
> href="#fnr.2">2</a></sup> <div class="footpara"><p class="footpara">
> test2 </p></div></div>
>
> We can see here that the named footnote creates a paragraph of the same
> class as the parent container "footpara" whereas the inlined one doesn't
> create this.  If this is intended, why?  If not, which is the intended
> one?

This is intended, in a way, since the inline footnote is not a paragraph
by itself. It is contained within a paragraph. This explains why you
cannot have blank lines within an inline footnote. 

OTOH, a footnote definition can contain multiple paragraphs.

I don't know if that's a good thing, but these differences at the Org
level are translated into the HTML output.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou