Hi Carsten, Thanks for the quick response. I've written a couple of additional comments below.
Carsten Dominik <domi...@science.uva.nl> 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
