From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Paulmier Subject: HTML Export - Footnotes inconcistency Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:39:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87k1n5ssnp.fsf@mpaulmier.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41819) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5sHL-0004nm-W6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:54:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5s3A-0002yo-40 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:39:19 -0400 Received: from v-zimmta03.u-bordeaux.fr ([147.210.215.83]:38130) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g5s39-0002vh-QD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:39:16 -0400 Received: from v-zimmta03.u-bordeaux.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by v-zimmta03.u-bordeaux.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97546180355F for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:39:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mpaulmier (p-gweduroam01.u-bordeaux.fr [147.210.245.181]) by v-zimmta03.u-bordeaux.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 882DC1803555 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:39:06 +0200 (CEST) List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, 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: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- #+TITLE: Testing footnotes #+LANGUAGE: en Testing[fn::test1] footnotes[fn:2] [fn:2] test2 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Exports to this : --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

Footnotes:

1
test1
2

test2

--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- 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? Reagards. -- Matthias Paulmier