Re: Footnotes and org-export, revisited

[Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com>]

Paul R <paul.r.ml@gmail.com> writes:


[...]

> Can others express their views on pros and cons of the two following
> usages :
>
> * Usage 1, anonymous footnotes
>
> Karate or karate-do is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands
> from indigenous fighting methods and Chinese kenpō[fn:: Kenpo is the
> name of several martial arts].

[...]

And then we will have that one feature request to cross reference a
previous footnote!  :-)  In the above case, how would a person go
about asking someone to refer to an earlier footnote?

> * Usage 2, keyword named footnotes
>
> Karate or karate-do is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands
> from indigenous fighting methods and Chinese kenpō[fn:kenpo]. It is
> primarily a striking art using punching, kicking, knee and elbow strikes
> and open-handed techniques such as knife-hands and ridge-hands.
>
> [fn:kenpo] Kenpo is the name of several martial arts

Unless I've got it wrong, wouldn't it be better to do something like

[fn:kenpo { Kenpo is the name of several martial arts}]
(keep the keyword and definition in one place?)

And all future references go as 'see [fn:kenpo] to understand the
meaning'.  Presumably when exported, all these keywords stuff
disappears and are replaced by standard LaTeX style footnote numbers,
right?  

[...]



 sivaram
 --