[Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Dear all, I'm a new org user who recently ran across the video of Carsten's Google talk. I have been looking for something like org for years, but learning Emacs had always seemed too high a price, so I never really considered Emacs-based options. However time is a teacher, and I see now that there are plenty of other higher prices than learning Emacs, which has anyway proved easier than I thought. Org-mode is really an amazing piece of work, a highly original piece of software, and possibly just what this vim user needs. When I think how much time I spent other solutions, including vim's two (basically unmaintained and functionally feeble) outline modes, I can only resign myself to the mild shame. The following is in response to a brief thread posted to this list in October by Matthew Lundin. He described the limitations of footnotes.el, and suggested two possibilities for extending footnotes support in org-mode. [1]. The problem with Steve L. Baur's (otherwise useful) footnotes mode is that it cannot 'read' the contents of a loaded buffer. So in any given editing session, footnote numbering always starts with 1, even if you already had 1...10 in your file from a previous editing session. This is simply a limitation of the mode in its current state. I expect the package's scope was originally confined to using footnotes in plain text emails, which are generally finished in one shot. There have been some efforts to overcome this limitation by means of a patch to footnote.el [2] and a new function, footnote-init.el [3] which reads the contents of a newly loaded buffer so that the patched footnote.el 'knows' about previously placed footnotes. These particular patches may not have all the kinks worked out, however,[4] and are not part of the current CVS of Emacs 23. But someone working in Muse did write an interesting extension to Muse's footnote support. (The extension is explained here [5], and the revised version of the code is here [6]). It is basically a hook function which converts footnotes with reference names[fn:named_note] to plain, numbered footnotes, like Muse and org-mode support. It operates on a temporary buffer just before export to LaTeX or HTML, so is transparent to the user. I too would like to make use of org-mode to do more extensive footnoting than the current footnote.el easily allows. I'm not sure of the best solution. Here are the alternatives I can think of: 1. Help Baur's footnotes.el get to the point where it has no trouble with multiple editing sessions and managing the numbering of any arbitrary quantity of footnotes. This is possible in theory. But I suspect that footnotes associated with body text by simple Arabic numerals are pretty easy to mangle in a simple text system that lets you do arbitrary things with the text. Comments? 2. Adapt the Muse code mentioned above for use with org-mode. This would keep org-mode's current footnote support unchanged, but allow named footnotes while writing. Carsten suggested something like this in his response to Matthew. 3. Add named footnote support to org-mode according to Matthew's second suggestion (similar to footnote functionality in Pandoc, Multi-Markdown or ReST). This could optionally include a function for the auto-generation of short (?) unique-ish IDs to use instead of names (in a long document, giving named references to dozens of similar footnotes could itself be a source of confusion). 4. Forget org-mode for anything with any quantity of footnotes. This is Carsten's other suggestion in response to Matthew. It's possible that the practicalities of footnote handling would prove too costly to get right. He knows this much better than I. (though I'm not sure that they impair org's plan-text readability as Carsten suggests. 5. A final solution (which might also gain other advantages) could be to begin to facilitate an org-export mode to Pandoc's native plain-text syntax (an extension of Markdown).[7] Pandoc is a robust Haskell engine to convert between plain text formats. This would add a step to org-mode export, but that one step could potentially allow conversion into the wide range of formats that Pandoc supports (markdown, reStructuredText, HTML, LaTeX, ConTeXt, RTF, DocBook XML, OpenDocument XML, ODT, GNU Texinfo, MediaWiki markup, groff man pages, and S5 HTML slide shows). Pandoc's syntax model already has a lot in common with org's. (Both allow LaTeX pass-through, for example). I don't know if such an export would meet the effort vs. value trade off, but I suggest it might. Comments? (by anyone who summoned the patience to read all of that... sorry for the length. I couldn't manage less). Scot B. Footnotes: [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/8373 [2] http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.sources/browse_thread/thread/49c826201105d1e9/7c3ea8323041f91c?lnk=gst&q=footnote#7c3ea8323041f91c [3] http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.sources/browse_thread/thread/e809f
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Hi Scot, thanks for your detailed and thoughtful post. On second consideration, I really like the proposal Matt made back then, and I even like more that there is already code to do this conversion. A quick look at Paul's code indicates that (add-hook 'org-export-preprocess-hook 'muse-build-list-of-footnotes) should be enough to get his code and footnote format working in Org-mode. The only inconsistency would currently be caused by trees that are marked archive or comment, because any footnotes defined in such trees would currently still be published as well. But that could be solved by a new hook called after these trees have been removed from the temporary buffer. If Paul agrees, and if he has signed the papers with the FSF, we can integrate his code into Org-mode. - Carsten On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Scot Becker wrote: Dear all, I'm a new org user who recently ran across the video of Carsten's Google talk. I have been looking for something like org for years, but learning Emacs had always seemed too high a price, so I never really considered Emacs-based options. However time is a teacher, and I see now that there are plenty of other higher prices than learning Emacs, which has anyway proved easier than I thought. Org-mode is really an amazing piece of work, a highly original piece of software, and possibly just what this vim user needs. When I think how much time I spent other solutions, including vim's two (basically unmaintained and functionally feeble) outline modes, I can only resign myself to the mild shame. The following is in response to a brief thread posted to this list in October by Matthew Lundin. He described the limitations of footnotes.el, and suggested two possibilities for extending footnotes support in org-mode. [1]. The problem with Steve L. Baur's (otherwise useful) footnotes mode is that it cannot 'read' the contents of a loaded buffer. So in any given editing session, footnote numbering always starts with 1, even if you already had 1...10 in your file from a previous editing session. This is simply a limitation of the mode in its current state. I expect the package's scope was originally confined to using footnotes in plain text emails, which are generally finished in one shot. There have been some efforts to overcome this limitation by means of a patch to footnote.el [2] and a new function, footnote-init.el [3] which reads the contents of a newly loaded buffer so that the patched footnote.el 'knows' about previously placed footnotes. These particular patches may not have all the kinks worked out, however,[4] and are not part of the current CVS of Emacs 23. But someone working in Muse did write an interesting extension to Muse's footnote support. (The extension is explained here [5], and the revised version of the code is here [6]). It is basically a hook function which converts footnotes with reference names[fn:named_note] to plain, numbered footnotes, like Muse and org-mode support. It operates on a temporary buffer just before export to LaTeX or HTML, so is transparent to the user. I too would like to make use of org-mode to do more extensive footnoting than the current footnote.el easily allows. I'm not sure of the best solution. Here are the alternatives I can think of: 1. Help Baur's footnotes.el get to the point where it has no trouble with multiple editing sessions and managing the numbering of any arbitrary quantity of footnotes. This is possible in theory. But I suspect that footnotes associated with body text by simple Arabic numerals are pretty easy to mangle in a simple text system that lets you do arbitrary things with the text. Comments? 2. Adapt the Muse code mentioned above for use with org-mode. This would keep org-mode's current footnote support unchanged, but allow named footnotes while writing. Carsten suggested something like this in his response to Matthew. 3. Add named footnote support to org-mode according to Matthew's second suggestion (similar to footnote functionality in Pandoc, Multi-Markdown or ReST). This could optionally include a function for the auto-generation of short (?) unique-ish IDs to use instead of names (in a long document, giving named references to dozens of similar footnotes could itself be a source of confusion). 4. Forget org-mode for anything with any quantity of footnotes. This is Carsten's other suggestion in response to Matthew. It's possible that the practicalities of footnote handling would prove too costly to get right. He knows this much better than I. (though I'm not sure that they impair org's plan-text readability as Carsten suggests. 5. A final solution (which might also gain other advantages) could be to begin to facilitate an org-export mode to Pandoc's native plain-text syntax (an extension of Markdown).[7] Pandoc is a robust Haskell engine to convert between plain text formats. This would add a step to org-mode export, but that one step could potentia
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
5. A final solution (which might also gain other advantages) could be to begin to facilitate an org-export mode to Pandoc's native plain-text syntax (an extension of Markdown).[7] Pandoc is a robust Haskell engine to convert between plain text formats. This would add a step to org-mode export, but that one step could potentially allow conversion into the wide range of formats that Pandoc supports (markdown, reStructuredText, HTML, LaTeX, ConTeXt, RTF, DocBook XML, OpenDocument XML, ODT, GNU Texinfo, MediaWiki markup, groff man pages, and S5 HTML slide shows). Pandoc's syntax model already has a lot in common with org's. (Both allow LaTeX pass-through, for example). I don't know if such an export would meet the effort vs. value trade off, but I suggest it might. I would welcome an org-export mode to Pandoc's markdown. I'm currently using markdown --> Pandoc for generating pdfs via ConTeXt and editable documents for people using word processors. An org-export mode to markdown would definitely make org the dominating mode for me. Cheers, Jörg -- Prof. Jörg Hagmann-Zanolari MD University of Basel Department of Biomedicine Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics Mattenstrasse 28 CH-4058 Basel Switzerland Phone +41 (0)61 267 3565 ___ 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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Hi, the result of this discussion about footnotes is now in the latest git version, see http://orgmode.org/Changes.html#sec-1.1.1 for more information. - Carsten On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Scot Becker wrote: Dear all, I'm a new org user who recently ran across the video of Carsten's Google talk. I have been looking for something like org for years, but learning Emacs had always seemed too high a price, so I never really considered Emacs-based options. However time is a teacher, and I see now that there are plenty of other higher prices than learning Emacs, which has anyway proved easier than I thought. Org-mode is really an amazing piece of work, a highly original piece of software, and possibly just what this vim user needs. When I think how much time I spent other solutions, including vim's two (basically unmaintained and functionally feeble) outline modes, I can only resign myself to the mild shame. The following is in response to a brief thread posted to this list in October by Matthew Lundin. He described the limitations of footnotes.el, and suggested two possibilities for extending footnotes support in org-mode. [1]. The problem with Steve L. Baur's (otherwise useful) footnotes mode is that it cannot 'read' the contents of a loaded buffer. So in any given editing session, footnote numbering always starts with 1, even if you already had 1...10 in your file from a previous editing session. This is simply a limitation of the mode in its current state. I expect the package's scope was originally confined to using footnotes in plain text emails, which are generally finished in one shot. There have been some efforts to overcome this limitation by means of a patch to footnote.el [2] and a new function, footnote-init.el [3] which reads the contents of a newly loaded buffer so that the patched footnote.el 'knows' about previously placed footnotes. These particular patches may not have all the kinks worked out, however,[4] and are not part of the current CVS of Emacs 23. But someone working in Muse did write an interesting extension to Muse's footnote support. (The extension is explained here [5], and the revised version of the code is here [6]). It is basically a hook function which converts footnotes with reference names[fn:named_note] to plain, numbered footnotes, like Muse and org-mode support. It operates on a temporary buffer just before export to LaTeX or HTML, so is transparent to the user. I too would like to make use of org-mode to do more extensive footnoting than the current footnote.el easily allows. I'm not sure of the best solution. Here are the alternatives I can think of: 1. Help Baur's footnotes.el get to the point where it has no trouble with multiple editing sessions and managing the numbering of any arbitrary quantity of footnotes. This is possible in theory. But I suspect that footnotes associated with body text by simple Arabic numerals are pretty easy to mangle in a simple text system that lets you do arbitrary things with the text. Comments? 2. Adapt the Muse code mentioned above for use with org-mode. This would keep org-mode's current footnote support unchanged, but allow named footnotes while writing. Carsten suggested something like this in his response to Matthew. 3. Add named footnote support to org-mode according to Matthew's second suggestion (similar to footnote functionality in Pandoc, Multi-Markdown or ReST). This could optionally include a function for the auto-generation of short (?) unique-ish IDs to use instead of names (in a long document, giving named references to dozens of similar footnotes could itself be a source of confusion). 4. Forget org-mode for anything with any quantity of footnotes. This is Carsten's other suggestion in response to Matthew. It's possible that the practicalities of footnote handling would prove too costly to get right. He knows this much better than I. (though I'm not sure that they impair org's plan-text readability as Carsten suggests. 5. A final solution (which might also gain other advantages) could be to begin to facilitate an org-export mode to Pandoc's native plain-text syntax (an extension of Markdown).[7] Pandoc is a robust Haskell engine to convert between plain text formats. This would add a step to org-mode export, but that one step could potentially allow conversion into the wide range of formats that Pandoc supports (markdown, reStructuredText, HTML, LaTeX, ConTeXt, RTF, DocBook XML, OpenDocument XML, ODT, GNU Texinfo, MediaWiki markup, groff man pages, and S5 HTML slide shows). Pandoc's syntax model already has a lot in common with org's. (Both allow LaTeX pass-through, for example). I don't know if such an export would meet the effort vs. value trade off, but I suggest it might. Comments? (by anyone who summoned the patience to read all of that... sorry for the length. I couldn't manage less). Scot B. Footnotes: [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/8373 [2] htt
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Hi Carsten, First of all, let me say thank you for this wonderful addition to org-mode. I will certainly do more of my writing in org-mode now. Incredible! I've tested the new footnote feature and can get everything to work except anonymous footnotes. When using more than one anonymous footnote, all subsequent anonymous footnotes are exported with the number of the first footnote and their notes are lost. (The same happens when normalizing footnotes in org-mode.) I've included the source and output below. At the moment, I'm using Emacs 22.2.1 (Carbon Emacs). Happy New Year! - Matt --- A. Here is the org source: --begin source-- * Testing the new footnotes function Here is a footnote.[fn:: The first anonymous footnote.] And here is another footnote.[fn:: The second anonymous footnote.] And a third anonymous footnote.[fn:: The third anonymous footnote.] Now a footnote with a definition.[fn:label] Here is the footnote with a definition.[fn:special: Inline definition.] Here is a reference to that same footnote.[fn:special] And a traditional numbered footnote.[2] [fn:label] Named footnote. [2] Numbered footnote. --end source-- B. Here's what the exported html looks like (copied from w3m): ---begin exported html--- Table of Contents * 1 Testing the new footnotes function 1 Testing the new footnotes function Here is a footnote.^1 And here is another footnote.^1 And a third anonymous footnote.^1 Now a footnote with a definition.^2 Here is the footnote with a definition.^3 Here is a reference to that same footnote.^3 And a traditional numbered footnote.^4 Footnotes: ^1 The first anonymous footnote. ^2 Named footnote. ^3 Inline definition. ^4 Numbered footnote. ---end exported html--- C. Finally, here are the results when I normalize the footnotes in org-mode: * Testing the new footnotes function Here is a footnote.[1] And here is another footnote.[1] And a third anonymous footnote.[1] Now a footnote with a definition.[2] Here is the footnote with a definition.[3] Here is a reference to that same footnote.[3] And a traditional numbered footnote.[4] * Footnotes [1] The first anonymous footnote. [2] Named footnote. [3] Inline definition. [4] Numbered footnote. Carsten Dominik writes: > Hi, > > the result of this discussion about footnotes is now > in the latest git version, see > > http://orgmode.org/Changes.html#sec-1.1.1 > > for more information. > > - 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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Hi Matt, the bug is fixed now, thanks for the report. Also, you can set org-footnote-section to nil if you want non-inline footnotes to be defined in the outline node where they are referenced, instead of a special outline node "Footnotes". - Carsten On Jan 1, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote: Hi Carsten, First of all, let me say thank you for this wonderful addition to org-mode. I will certainly do more of my writing in org-mode now. Incredible! I've tested the new footnote feature and can get everything to work except anonymous footnotes. When using more than one anonymous footnote, all subsequent anonymous footnotes are exported with the number of the first footnote and their notes are lost. (The same happens when normalizing footnotes in org-mode.) I've included the source and output below. At the moment, I'm using Emacs 22.2.1 (Carbon Emacs). Happy New Year! - Matt --- A. Here is the org source: --begin source-- * Testing the new footnotes function Here is a footnote.[fn:: The first anonymous footnote.] And here is another footnote.[fn:: The second anonymous footnote.] And a third anonymous footnote.[fn:: The third anonymous footnote.] Now a footnote with a definition.[fn:label] Here is the footnote with a definition.[fn:special: Inline definition.] Here is a reference to that same footnote.[fn:special] And a traditional numbered footnote.[2] [fn:label] Named footnote. [2] Numbered footnote. --end source-- B. Here's what the exported html looks like (copied from w3m): ---begin exported html--- Table of Contents * 1 Testing the new footnotes function 1 Testing the new footnotes function Here is a footnote.^1 And here is another footnote.^1 And a third anonymous footnote.^1 Now a footnote with a definition.^2 Here is the footnote with a definition.^3 Here is a reference to that same footnote.^3 And a traditional numbered footnote.^4 Footnotes: ^1 The first anonymous footnote. ^2 Named footnote. ^3 Inline definition. ^4 Numbered footnote. ---end exported html--- C. Finally, here are the results when I normalize the footnotes in org-mode: * Testing the new footnotes function Here is a footnote.[1] And here is another footnote.[1] And a third anonymous footnote.[1] Now a footnote with a definition.[2] Here is the footnote with a definition.[3] Here is a reference to that same footnote.[3] And a traditional numbered footnote.[4] * Footnotes [1] The first anonymous footnote. [2] Named footnote. [3] Inline definition. [4] Numbered footnote. Carsten Dominik writes: Hi, the result of this discussion about footnotes is now in the latest git version, see http://orgmode.org/Changes.html#sec-1.1.1 for more information. - 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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Dominik writes:
> Hi Matt,
>
> the bug is fixed now, thanks for the report.
>
> Also, you can set org-footnote-section to nil
> if you want non-inline footnotes to be defined
> in the outline node where they are referenced, instead
> of a special outline node "Footnotes".
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.
A few other *wishlist* items/ideas regarding this wonderful addition
to org-mode. Please feel free to consider or disregard these ideas at
your leisure.
A. For visibility in org-mode files, it might be nice if there were a
special face for the footnote markup. One of the things I really like
about AUCTeX is its nice color highlighting of macros such as
footnotes. (And, of course, I like the same thing about hyperlinks in
org-mode!)
B. Also for visibility in org-mode files, it might nice to have the
option of making the content of inline footnotes invisible (similar to
AUCTeX macro folding). For instance, if this option were turned on...
Here is a footnote.[fn:: Footnote text.]
would appear as...
Here is a footnote.[fn]
Perhaps then a function/keybinding could allow editing the footnote
text in the minibuffer, similar to C-c C-l for links.
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? As far as I understand it,
the pre-process hook for org-latex-export already does something
similar (line 1310). It converts regular footnotes like this:
Here is a footnote.[1]
[1] Footnote text.
to...
Here is a footnote.\footnote{Footnote text.}
I wonder whether something similar could be available in org-mode
buffers--i.e., conversion to the inline [fn:: Footnote text] instead
of the LaTeX macro.
The chief rationale for such a feature would be to make footnotes
portable from one org-mode file to another. Let's say I have a lot of
numbered/labeled footnotes defined under an outline heading titled
"Footnotes." Let's say, additionally, that I'd like to copy one
subtree of text from that file to a different file, but that I want to
ensure that only those footnotes referred to in the subtree are
copied. Being able to convert all footnotes in the file to inline
footnotes would ensure that the correct footnotes are
attached/included. Then, of course, it would be easy to normalize
footnotes once again in both files.
D. When normalizing inline footnotes, it would be nice if there were
an option for automatically filling the resulting paragraphs and
footnotes. Currently the following source:
A long inline footnote.[fn:: Here is a long inline footnote that
stretches on and on.] Another footnote appears here.[fn:: Footnote
text.] And here is another inline footnote.[fn:: Inline footnote
number 3.]
normalizes to...
A long inline footnote.[1] Another footnote appears here.[2] And here is
another inline footnote.[3]
[1] Here is a long inline footnote that
stretches on and on.
[2] Footnote
text.
[3] Inline footnote
number 3.
Sorry for this exceedingly long email. Again, these are simply
wishlist items that I respectfully submit for your consideration.
Already the footnote markup does more than I ever imagined I'd be able
to do in plain text. Thanks again!
- Matt
___
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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
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:
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Dominik writes:
Hi Matt,
the bug is fixed now, thanks for the report.
Also, you can set org-footnote-section to nil
if you want non-inline footnotes to be defined
in the outline node where they are referenced, instead
of a special outline node "Footnotes".
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.
A few other *wishlist* items/ideas regarding this wonderful addition
to org-mode. Please feel free to consider or disregard these ideas at
your leisure.
A. For visibility in org-mode files, it might be nice if there were a
special face for the footnote markup. One of the things I really like
about AUCTeX is its nice color highlighting of macros such as
footnotes. (And, of course, I like the same thing about hyperlinks in
org-mode!)
Done.
B. Also for visibility in org-mode files, it might nice to have the
option of making the content of inline footnotes invisible (similar to
AUCTeX macro folding). For instance, if this option were turned on...
Here is a footnote.[fn:: Footnote text.]
would appear as...
Here is a footnote.[fn]
Perhaps then a function/keybinding could allow editing the footnote
text in the minibuffer, similar to C-c C-l for links.
I agree that this would be nice, but multiline font-lock (which
would be needed to do this) is relatively fragile. I believe John & CO
have a better font-lock scheme in muse wich does handle this stuff
better,
but I would need time to study how tis exactly works.
So no for now.
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? As far as I understand it,
the pre-process hook for org-latex-export already does something
similar (line 1310).
Yes. Footnote export to LaTeX is actually silly. It first extracts
all notes to the end of te buffer during preprocessing, and then
moves them back during export :-)
It converts regular footnotes like this:
Here is a footnote.[1]
[1] Footnote text.
to...
Here is a footnote.\footnote{Footnote text.}
I wonder whether something similar could be available in org-mode
buffers--i.e., conversion to the inline [fn:: Footnote text] instead
of the LaTeX macro.
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.
Let's say I have a lot of
numbered/labeled footnotes defined under an outline heading titled
"Footnotes." Let's say, additionally, that I'd like to copy one
subtree of text from that file to a different file, but that I want to
ensure that only those footnotes referred to in the subtree are
copied. Being able to convert all footnotes in the file to inline
footnotes would ensure that the correct footnotes are
attached/included. Then, of course, it would be easy to normalize
footnotes once again in both files.
D. When normalizing inline footnotes, it would be nice if there were
an option for automatically filling the resulting paragraphs and
footnotes. Currently the following source:
This option does now exist:
org-footnote-fill-after-inline-note-extraction
The only problem s that while Org-s fill-paragraph does the right
thing under most circumstances, there are cases where it is imperfect
or even breaks things. Try it, mostly it should work.
In fact, this is relevant only for normalizing in the buffer, and for
the
ASCII backend. The other backends do not care.
Thanks, please keep testing and the feedback coming.
- 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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Hi Carsten, Thanks for the quick response. I've written a couple of additional comments below. Carsten Dominik 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 ___ 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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
Fixed, thanks. - Carsten On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote: Hi Carsten, Thanks for the quick response. I've written a couple of additional comments below. Carsten Dominik 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 ___ 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
Re: [Orgmode] Footnotes and org-export, revisited
I'm impressed at how the new footnote support has managed to put together readability, stability, ease of use and export-ability (including the ability to refer to a footnote multiple times!) . I have seen no problems in my initial tests, and will do more extensive (can I break anything?) tests as soon as I have the chance. I think that 'org' is now the only plain-text minimal markup engine to support both inline and out-of-line footnotes, and I'm quite sure that none of the others have numbered, labeled, and inline footnotes. And as for ease of use, well any comparison is unfair. The rest are just language specifications and processing engines, they offer no help in the writing. I'm shocked and pleased at how Carsten (with input from the contributors to this thread) managed to make a somewhat ragged and even contradictory wishlist into something this elegant and easy to use. Scot ___ 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
