On Dec 17, 2008, at 6:18 PM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
Paul R <paul.r...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
Can others express their views on pros and cons of the two following
usages :
* Usage 1, anonymous footnotes
Karate or karate-do is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands
from indigenous fighting methods and Chinese kenpō[fn:: Kenpo is the
name of several martial arts].
[...]
And then we will have that one feature request to cross reference a
previous footnote! :-) In the above case, how would a person go
about asking someone to refer to an earlier footnote?
* Usage 2, keyword named footnotes
Karate or karate-do is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands
from indigenous fighting methods and Chinese kenpō[fn:kenpo]. It is
primarily a striking art using punching, kicking, knee and elbow
strikes
and open-handed techniques such as knife-hands and ridge-hands.
[fn:kenpo] Kenpo is the name of several martial arts
Unless I've got it wrong, wouldn't it be better to do something like
[fn:kenpo { Kenpo is the name of several martial arts}]
(keep the keyword and definition in one place?)
And all future references go as 'see [fn:kenpo] to understand the
meaning'. Presumably when exported, all these keywords stuff
disappears and are replaced by standard LaTeX style footnote numbers,
right?
[...]
Hi Sivaram, I can see how this would be represented in
HTML (just several links to the same footnote), but how
would you represent this in LaTeX?
- Carsten
_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
