Suhail Shergill <[email protected]> writes:
> Jambunathan K <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>> running org-export-as-html on a subtree is currently problematic if
>>>> the result is to be merged into a document which contains html-ized
>>>> versions of other subtrees: the footnote references and definitions
>>>> get clobbered.
>>
>> Do the subtrees come from the same org file?
>
> that is the use case, yes.
Try marking the subtrees with :export: tag. Lookup the following in the
mailing list, worg or the info manual.
#+EXPORT_SELECT_TAGS: Tags that select a tree for export
#+EXPORT_EXCLUDE_TAGS: Tags that exclude a tree from export
With this, do footnotes come out along the expected lines?
>> Won't it look odd and confusing to a reader, when there are two
>> different footnote definitions with the same number.
>
> yes i agree that would be very confusing. but why, pray tell, would
> there be two different definitions with the same number?
<a>you haven't modified the description have you?</a>
>> Confusion is like to be pronounced, if the reader chooses to also print out
>> the document as a pdf or into paper.
>
> the *only* behavioural change that this effects is that the links (and
> backlinks
> from the definitions to references) will continue to work properly even in the
> event the user decides to merge the result of multiple subtree exports into
> one
> single document.
Links are visible when stuff is printed out on paper. Is it?
--
