Re: [Orgmode] footnote export fails if footnote indented

[Dan Davison]

Samuel Wales <address@hidden> 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.

Dan

>
> My old relatively thorough test case with 11 specific documented
> points to test for:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/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 <address@hidden> 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!