Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

Hello, Simon Thum writes: > Same here (yes please!), for the same reason ;) > > On 12/19/2015 04:27 PM, Thierry Banel wrote: >> I vote "yes". >> It was annoying to see bracketed numbers as links to nowhere. >> >> The Nobel prize for the detection of the neutrino _[1995]_ was

Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

Same here (yes please!), for the same reason ;) On 12/19/2015 04:27 PM, Thierry Banel wrote: I vote "yes". It was annoying to see bracketed numbers as links to nowhere. The Nobel prize for the detection of the neutrino _[1995]_ was FrederickReines and the prizes for the discovery of

Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

I vote "yes". It was annoying to see bracketed numbers as links to nowhere.   The Nobel prize for the detection of the neutrino [1995] was   Frederick Reines and the prizes for the discovery of neutrino   oscillations [2015]

Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

Hello, Rasmus writes: > Can I now write: > > X[fn:1] > > [1] foot Uh? No. > If so, why the need for the fanciness? Why not just require label and > reference to be the same? I doesn’t sound like something that would be > nice to have to explain to an Org newcomer. I

Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Rasmus writes: > >> Can I now write: >> >> X[fn:1] >> >> [1] foot > > Uh? No. > [...] Very good! Thanks for clarifying. Rasmus -- A page of history is worth a volume of logic

[O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

Hello, As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them. As a consequence, "fn:" can now be

Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes

Hi, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated > branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. > > In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like > constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time