From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Wales Subject: Re: footnote export fails if footnote indented Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:07:15 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87skabj973.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <0D8AC6D2-35B9-4F0B-A47B-76A6FC28E83D@gmail.com> <87sk6vibjn.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> <87ochji6oa.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O2qsx-0004aS-FB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:07:27 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58703 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O2qsp-0004Yk-6H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:07:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O2qsn-0000iY-1E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:07:19 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com ([209.85.221.179]:43348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O2qsm-0000i2-Qc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:07:16 -0400 Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so3244113qyk.1 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:07:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ochji6oa.fsf@stats.ox.ac.uk> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Dan Davison Cc: Carsten Dominik , emacs org-mode mailing list On 2010-04-16, Dan Davison wrote: > Samuel Wales writes: > >> Here are 2 test cases for footnotes. Perhaps they can be put in a >> test directory somewhere if they are useful. > > Hi Samuel, > > Thanks. You have obviously thought about this a lot more carefully than > me. Is there any chance you could run your test files with Carsten's > patch, with the footnote definitions tab indented away from the left > margin, and report on whether the patch introduces any new problems? I > did quickly try exporting your file but I wasn't sure how to interpret > the output. For health reasons, I cannot at this time. > > Dan > >> >> My old relatively thorough test case with 11 specific documented >> points to test for: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode@gnu.org/msg10877.html >> >> And my recent one, sloppily put together and reproduced here: >> >> * top >> *** an article >> sadfkaj sdnfklaj nsfklandsf >> asd flkajnd sfa >> *** an article. exporting this to ascii does not export anonymous >> footnotes >> I sometimes[fn:3] mix regular[fn:1] footnotes and inline >> [fn:: There are issues here. For example, I have to type >> them in manually. You cannot leave empty; it won't accept >> it. Maybe it has to do with my ido setup. Exporting this >> to ASCII seems to silent fail. I tried "fn:: text" and >> "fn::text".] ones[fn:2]. >> >> === >> >> [fn:1] ordinary. note that if you put point here and do c-c >> c-c, you will get sent to the next article, which is >> disconcerting. i expected it to go up to the thing that >> points to it. this situation, where you have duplicate >> footnote numbers in the same file, but different org >> entries, is very common when you refile an article. >> \par >> don't know how to separate paragraphs in a footnote in >> a way that fill-paragraph with filladapt will understand. >> would be nice if a way were possible, imo. >> >> [fn:2] another >> >> [fn:3] a third >> # a comment >> *** another article >> ordinary [fn:1], inline[fn:This is a test.], and >> regular[fn:2] footnotes. >> >> === >> >> [fn:1] regular >> >> [fn:2] usual >> *** another article >> asdfj alkdfn akljdn fklajdf >> askdfn al;ksjnf lajdnf klajdnf >> skjdhflakjdnf klajnf [fn:1] >> >> [fn:1] test >> *** another article >> asdknf lakjdnf ak >> asdkjfn aldjf >> >> >> On 2010-04-16, Dan Davison wrote: >>> I hadn't forgotten about this but I have been conscious that I wasn't >>> giving it the testing it deserved. I don't export with footnotes that >>> much, and when I do it tends to be to HTML. So I haven't noticed any >>> problems, but perhaps some others who use footnotes more seriously than >>> me could test out this patch for a bit? Sorry, I know I should have sent >>> this email ages ago! > -- Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb? A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years] ========== Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html