I found this was fixed on both maint and master branch :)
Thanks for all your works, but would you tell us how did you do it? or give
the commit id? (Sorry I did not find it by myself...)

Thank you very much.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> KDr2 <killy.draw@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recognized as
> > footnote, e.g.:
> >
> > #+BEGIN_HTML
> > ONE[1]
> > <script>
> > console.log(v1[0]);
> > </script>
> > #+END_HTML
> >
> > There are two footnotes in the generated HTML. Would you fix this
> > please?
>
> Unfortunately, no, I cannot fix it.
>
> The problem is even deeper. Indeed, my approach is fundamentally wrong:
> it is impossible to postpone choosing between parsed or raw data at
> export time. This information must be obtained at parsing time.
>
> Yet, I think syntax should not depend on the libraries loaded. So the
> initial problem still needs a solution.
>
> Special blocks and export blocks are just too similar.  We could make
> them slightly different. One solution is to mark explicitly blocks meant
> to insert raw code. E.g.,
>
>   #+BEGIN_SOMETHING :special t
>   ...
>   #+END_SOMETHING
>
> vs
>
>   #+BEGIN_SOMETHING
>   ...
>   #+END_SOMETHING
>
> In the first case contents would be parsed and the block treated as
> a special block (i.e. depending on the back-end) whereas in the second
> case, contents would be inserted as-is in the buffer, provided target
> export back-ends accepts data from "SOMETHING" blocks (IOW "SOMETHING"
> = "LATEX" if ox-latex is used).
>
> This is clearly not backward-compatible. But it only modifies syntax for
> special blocks, which, I guess, are much less used than their cousins,
> export blocks. The ":special t" may be shorter, too.
>
> Cc'ing Bastien for his opinion.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>



-- 
-- 

KDr2, http://kdr2.com