From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suhail Shergill Subject: Re: org-html: subtree specific footnote references Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 04:18:25 +0000 Message-ID: <871ukk9rla.fsf@chaos.shergill.su> References: <87txxjuysd.fsf@chaos.shergill.su> <87zk7b72dj.fsf@chaos.shergill.su> <818vess2cb.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56837) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SoRuD-0003Iy-AM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:18:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SoRuB-0001Ze-HR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:18:32 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:56473) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SoRuB-0001RG-9c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:18:31 -0400 Received: by obhx4 with SMTP id x4so19471522obh.0 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:18:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <818vess2cb.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:18:52 +0530") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Jambunathan K writes: >>> running org-export-as-html on a subtree is currently problematic if >>> the result is to be merged into a document which contains html-ized >>> versions of other subtrees: the footnote references and definitions >>> get clobbered. > > Do the subtrees come from the same org file? that is the use case, yes. > Won't it look odd and confusing to a reader, when there are two > different footnote definitions with the same number. yes i agree that would be very confusing. but why, pray tell, would there be two different definitions with the same number? > Confusion is like to be pronounced, if the reader chooses to also print out > the document as a pdf or into paper. again, i'm not sure what scenario you're describing. i was only describing a scenario where the patch is useful. allow me to try again. with the current patch, if the user selects the entire org file and exports it, there will only be *one* footnotes section, albeit the footnote references and definitions (which aren't visible unless someone inspects the source) will be annotated with the CUSTOM_ID property value should it be defined. the *only* behavioural change that this effects is that the links (and backlinks from the definitions to references) will continue to work properly even in the event the user decides to merge the result of multiple subtree exports into one single document. now whether or not someone wants to do that, is up to them, but this (the patch in question) at least makes the links more robust. -- Suhail