Bastien writes:
> My view is that org-e-html.el should also make sure that we always
> have unique ids for all the footnotes of the current files, even when
> we export only part of it.
>
> This is not a trivial change though, because org-export.el has to
> change the way it retrieves the footn
Hi Suhail,
I have accepted the patch. I added a TINYCHANGE cookie at the end
of the git commit message: this is requested for tiny changes made
by people who did not sign the FSF papers.
Suhail Shergill writes:
> *if* this patch makes sense, i'm willing to submit a patch for
> org-e-html.el.
Jambunathan K writes:
> Suhail Shergill writes:
>
>> i'm talking about a scenario where for one reason or another you may
>> not want to do that, but may instead only want to export the most
>> recent subtree which has been added (since the last time it was
>> exported).
>
> You are trying to me
Suhail Shergill writes:
> i'm talking about a scenario where for one reason or another you may
> not want to do that, but may instead only want to export the most
> recent subtree which has been added (since the last time it was
> exported).
You are trying to merge two /instances of export comma
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?
>>
>> you haven't modified the de
Jambunathan K writes:
> Suhail Shergill writes:
>
>> Jambunathan K 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 definit
Suhail Shergill writes:
> Jambunathan K 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.
>>
>> D
Jambunathan K 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 o
>> 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?
Won't it look odd an
oops. attached the wrong patch. amended patch follows.
>From b9192f5e9a3bbe9620d9f588313d7f62e33135a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Suhail Shergill
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 10:49:51 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] org-html.el: Make footnotes unique to an entry
* lisp/org-html.el (org-export-as-html): Assig
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.
this patch uses the CUSTOM_ID property of the subtree to generate unique
footno
11 matches
Mail list logo
