* Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
@ 2018-05-16 18:25 ST
2018-05-16 18:31 ` Kaushal Modi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: ST @ 2018-05-16 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Org-mode
Hello,
in the manual
https://orgmode.org/manual/Footnotes.html#Footnotes
it says that footnotes[fn:1]
[fn:1] look like this
but actually[1]
[1] works as well and looks even better.
So why this option is not documented?
Thank you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
2018-05-16 18:25 Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?) ST
@ 2018-05-16 18:31 ` Kaushal Modi
2018-05-16 19:03 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2018-11-13 10:38 ` ST
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Kaushal Modi @ 2018-05-16 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ST; +Cc: Org-mode
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 662 bytes --]
Hello,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:27 PM ST <smntov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in the manual
>
> https://orgmode.org/manual/Footnotes.html#Footnotes
>
> it says that footnotes[fn:1]
>
> [fn:1] look like this
>
>
> but actually[1]
>
> [1] works as well and looks even better.
>
> So why this option is not documented?
>
I would think that's so because canonically Org mode using [fn:1] style. It
looks like you are manually typing the footnote refs and definitions.
Try using C-c C-x f binding.. you will see that Org inserts the footnotes
in the documented style.
I would say that the "fn"-style footnotes remove any kind of ambiguity..
--
Kaushal Modi
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1256 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
2018-05-16 18:31 ` Kaushal Modi
@ 2018-05-16 19:03 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2018-11-13 10:38 ` ST
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Goaziou @ 2018-05-16 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kaushal Modi; +Cc: Org-mode, ST
Hello,
Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> writes:
> I would think that's so because canonically Org mode using [fn:1] style. It
> looks like you are manually typing the footnote refs and definitions.
>
> Try using C-c C-x f binding.. you will see that Org inserts the footnotes
> in the documented style.
>
> I would say that the "fn"-style footnotes remove any kind of
> ambiguity..
Moreover, [1]-like footnotes have been removed in 9.0. It's a bug if Org
thinks [1] is a footnote.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
2018-05-16 18:31 ` Kaushal Modi
2018-05-16 19:03 ` Nicolas Goaziou
@ 2018-11-13 10:38 ` ST
2018-11-13 16:44 ` Nicolas Goaziou
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: ST @ 2018-11-13 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kaushal Modi; +Cc: Org-mode
On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 14:31 -0400, Kaushal Modi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:27 PM ST <smntov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> in the manual
>
> https://orgmode.org/manual/Footnotes.html#Footnotes
>
> it says that footnotes[fn:1]
>
> [fn:1] look like this
>
>
> but actually[1]
>
> [1] works as well and looks even better.
>
> So why this option is not documented?
>
>
> I would think that's so because canonically Org mode using [fn:1]
> style. It looks like you are manually typing the footnote refs and
> definitions.
>
>
> Try using C-c C-x f binding.. you will see that Org inserts the
> footnotes in the documented style.
>
>
> I would say that the "fn"-style footnotes remove any kind of
> ambiguity..
It's true that [1] alone may very well introduce ambiguity, but why not
to take something more lightweight and language/alphabet independent,
like [^1]?
1. It's three times shorter (its important if you type manually in
GitLab/GitHub without the C-c C-x f binding);
2. If you type in another language - you don't have to switch the
keyboard;
3. If your text is in another alphabet - latin "fn" disturbs the eye.
4. It feels a bit heavy as a markup for the lightweight org .
(a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new
feature?
(b) How can I define such syntax by my own as a footnote?
Thank you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
2018-11-13 10:38 ` ST
@ 2018-11-13 16:44 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2018-11-13 19:04 ` ST
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Goaziou @ 2018-11-13 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ST; +Cc: Org-mode, Kaushal Modi
Hello,
ST <smntov@gmail.com> writes:
> (a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new
> feature?
I sympathize with your concern, and [^1] may not have been a bad choice
when footnotes were introduced, but that ship has sailed long ago.
There is enough footnote syntax in Org nowadays. I'd rather keep it that
way.
> (b) How can I define such syntax by my own as a footnote?
You may have to tweak some libraries, e.g., org-footnote.el and
org-element.el, but you're on your own here.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
2018-11-13 16:44 ` Nicolas Goaziou
@ 2018-11-13 19:04 ` ST
2018-11-14 20:11 ` Nicolas Goaziou
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: ST @ 2018-11-13 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Org-mode, Kaushal Modi
Hello,
>
> > (a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new
> > feature?
>
> I sympathize with your concern, and [^1] may not have been a bad choice
> when footnotes were introduced, but that ship has sailed long ago.
>
> There is enough footnote syntax in Org nowadays.
I saw only "fn:" related variations in the docs...
> I'd rather keep it that
> way.
Even if somebody else implements this and provides a patch?...
Thank you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?)
2018-11-13 19:04 ` ST
@ 2018-11-14 20:11 ` Nicolas Goaziou
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Goaziou @ 2018-11-14 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ST; +Cc: Org-mode, Kaushal Modi
Hello,
ST <smntov@gmail.com> writes:
> I saw only "fn:" related variations in the docs...
Indeed, but every variation needs to be handled specifically, so it
ultimately counts as a different syntax.
> Even if somebody else implements this and provides a patch?...
Yes, please. This is a matter of design, not implementation. I'd like to
stabilize Org syntax as much as possible.
As a rule of thumb, I would only consider syntax changes only for:
1. broken syntax
2. missing feature
3. syntax hindering compatibility (e.g., conditional syntax)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-14 20:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-16 18:25 Footnotes in the manual (hidden option?) ST
2018-05-16 18:31 ` Kaushal Modi
2018-05-16 19:03 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2018-11-13 10:38 ` ST
2018-11-13 16:44 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2018-11-13 19:04 ` ST
2018-11-14 20:11 ` Nicolas Goaziou
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).