Re: [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:
>
>> Clearly the current situation is not satisfactory ("You can use :lines,
>> but only if no footnotes are present. . .  IOW, :lines supports a subset
>> of Org syntax.").
>>
>> I prefer converting [fn:N] references to [fn::FOOTNOTE] (see my other
>> email).  Any obvious downsides?
>
> Yes: inline and regular footnotes are not equivalent. For example,
> a regular footnote can contain a table, a plain list... So this is not
> an option here.

Damn.  I only saw this after changing my path to this behavior.  Good
point anyway.  Though the idea of a table in a footnote is truly
horrifying.

> I think required definitions should be extracted from the included file
> and inserted at the end of the source file, without any footnote
> section. 

The "hard" solution.  I will look into it.

> However, it would be nice to store associations between files
> and footnote labels in, e.g., a hash table, in order to avoid inserting
> multiple times the same footnote.

What is your reasoning for this statement?  Aesthetics, performance or
something else?

—Rasmus

-- 
Dobbelt-A