Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited

[Matthew Lundin]

Hi Carsten,

Thanks for the quick response. I've written a couple of additional
comments below.

Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Matt, thanks for this much needed feedback.  I was already working
> into the direction of some of your proposals, but certainly not all.
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for alerting me to this option. I'm assuming that
>> org-footnote-section is meant to control the initial placement of
>> non-inline footnotes and not their placement after sorting or
>> normalizing. (When I sort or normalize the footnotes, they are placed
>> at the end of the last section of the outline.) Would it be possible
>> to have this option also control the placement of sorted footnotes?
>> I.e., during sorting or normalizing, footnotes would be placed in the
>> outline section corresponding to their reference.
>
> Yes, this would be much more consistent.  Now it does this,
> sorting will move each definition to the entry of the first
> reference, if org-footnote-section is nil.
>

This is great! I did notice a couple of quirks when
org-footnote-section is set to nil.

A. If there is no empty line at the end of a section or the end of the
buffer, org-footnote-action inserts the footnote above the reference.
As in the following example:

----begin org file-----
* Headline one

[fn:1] Org-footnote-action inserts footnote above the reference.

A footnote inserted with no space the bottom of a section.[fn:1]
* Headline two
   One empty line at the bottom of this section.[fn:2]

[fn:2] 

* Headline three

[fn:3] Again, same behavior as first footnote.

No space at the bottom of buffer.[fn:3]
----end org file-----

B. If one of the footnotes is directly above a headline (i.e., no
intervening empty line), it does not get sorted with C-u C-c C-x f s.

-----begin original org file-----

* Headline one

Here is a footnote.[fn:1] And here is another footnote.[fn:2] And here
is a third footnote.[fn:3] 

[fn:3] Footnote three

[fn:1] Footnote one.

[fn:2] Footnote two.
* Headline two

-----end original org file-------

And after sorting:

-----begin sorted footnotes file------

* Headline one

Here is a footnote.[fn:1] And here is another footnote.[fn:2] And here
is a third footnote.[fn:3]

[fn:1] Footnote one.

[fn:3] Footnote three

[fn:2] Footnote two.
* Headline two 

-----end sorted footnotes file------


>> C. The in-buffer conversion from inline footnotes to numbered
>> footnotes is fantastic for creating readable documents. It might be a
>> nice feature to have a similar conversion in reverse: that is, from
>> non-inline footnotes to inline footnotes? 
>>
>> The chief rationale for such a feature would be to make footnotes
>> portable from one org-mode file to another.
>
> Isn't the new sorting good enough for this?  I am uncomfortable with
> letting a program doing so much complex editing.  I think it will
> break too often.

Yes, I see how this could be a very dangerous feature, since if it
breaks, it might have ruinous effects. And I see that this would be
redundant, as the sorting option already accomplishes this quite
nicely.

> Thanks, please keep testing and the feedback coming.

I most certainly will! 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, thanks again for all
your work on org-mode!

Matt