From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Lundin Subject: Re: Footnotes and org-export, revisited Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:53:29 -0600 Message-ID: References: <3051994A-5B12-4497-AB58-BAF9A70020D8@uva.nl> <5E498B46-C3D1-4BF6-AD0E-4F416CD72EE9@uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJFNG-0004IK-Dd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:53:42 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LJFNC-0004Hi-Nu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:53:42 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40868 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LJFNC-0004HW-Kz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:53:38 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:60135) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LJFNC-0005eD-51 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:53:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Carsten Dominik's message of "Sat\, 3 Jan 2009 09\:17\:08 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Carsten Dominik Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Carsten, Thanks for the quick response. I've written a couple of additional comments below. Carsten Dominik 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