Re: footnote renumber bug

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de>]

Matthew Lundin wrote:
> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:
>
>   
>> Karl Maihofer wrote:
>>     
>>> Andreas Roehler schrieb:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> after reopening a file with two footnotes inside,
>>>> inserting a third footnote between first and second, it
>>>> fails to renumber it.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Did you try the new "C-u C-c C-x f S" feature of the latest git-version?
>>>   
>>>       
>> No. Just  check this feature for curiosity,  as I  dealt with that bug
>> at common footnote.el
>>  
>>     
>>> Org does not renumber footnotes automatically when they are inserted.
>>> You have to use the command above to do that.
>>>   
>>>       
>> IMO a decent program should renumber automatically.
>> Patched footnote.el meanwhile does if called with footnote-init.
>> Unfortunately your footnote-machine is written fairly different from
>> footnote.el.
>> Otherwise I'd send a patch.
>>
>>     
>
> There is nothing preventing a user from using footnote.el (and your
> patch) within org mode instead of the built in org-footnote-action.
> Simply set up a hook to load footnote-mode for org files.
>
> But the lack of automatic renumbering in org-footnote is *not* a bug.
> Unlike footnote.el, org-mode views footnote notation primarily as
> markup, not as some form of "final output." The source text simply
> contains footnote markup, which can be exported as normalized footnotes.
> And of course, at any point, user has the option of normalizing
> footnotes in the source text if he/she so desires.
>
> Footnote.el, by contrast, was designed for short email messages in which
> there is no distinction between source text and exported text. Though it
> serves this limited purpose admirably, it offers only a very rudimentary
> numbering system rather than a complete markup solution. For any complex
> writing (e.g., a research paper with dozens of footnotes), footnote.el
> is well-nigh impossible to use. There are simply too many chances of
> broken or mixed up links.
>   

Hi Matthew,

thanks for you explanation. As often several solutions are possible and
different people choose different options.

Ignoring the guts of org-modes footnote implementation, just my impression
of footnote.el:

it's fine by architecture and --if patched-- well capable for all things
you want to do with footnotes.
Can't see any limitation concerning larger texts.
It simply wasn't --or isn't-- written to the end.


> Org-mode's handling of footnotes is considerably more robust. Several
> different types of footnote styles are available:
>
>  - numbered[1]
>
>  - labeled[fn:label]
>
>  - inline[fn::Here is an inline footnote.]
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] Numbered
>
> [fn:label] Here is a labeled footnote. 
>
> ------
>
>   

> All of these can be mixed together in the same document. Upon export to
> pdf, ascii, or html they will be properly sorted and numbered, but the
> labels in the source will remain the same, ensuring that the source text
> remains *exactly* as the user wants it to be. 
>
> At any point, however, the user can sort and/or renumber the footnotes
> in the source text. For instance, the footnotes above can very quickly
> and easily converted to the following:
>
> ,----
> |
> |  - numbered[1]
> | 
> |  - labeled[2]
> | 
> |  - inline[3]
> | 
> | Footnotes:
> | 
> | [1] Numbered
> | 
> | [2] Here is a labeled footnote.
> | 
> | [3] Here is an inline footnote.
> `----
>   

Transformation looks interesting indeed.
Should  org-modes  footnote  better  fit my  purposes,  I'll not
hesitate to use it.


Andreas

> The key here, however, is that the process is completely under the
> user's control. Footnotes will not be sorted or reorganized in the
> source text unless the user desires it. In my view, this is the proper
> behavior for a robust markup system. The whole point of markup is to
> avoid the sorts of automated, global alterations of the source text that
> are characteristic of word-processors.
>
> With labeled footnotes in org-footnote, I can rearrange my text and rest
> assured that none of my footnote links will be broken. And if I delete a
> footnote reference without deleting its corresponding definition (or
> vice-versa), org-mode will alert me to the problem when I export or sort
> the footnotes.
>
> All this is to explain why the lack of automatic renumbering is *not* a
> bug. And of course, anyone who prefers a different behavior can easily
> use footnote.el instead.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
>
>
>