On 2010-04-16, Dan Davison <davi...@stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Here are 2 test cases for footnotes. Perhaps they can be put in a >> test directory somewhere if they are useful. > > Hi Samuel, > > Thanks. You have obviously thought about this a lot more carefully than > me. Is there any chance you could run your test files with Carsten's > patch, with the footnote definitions tab indented away from the left > margin, and report on whether the patch introduces any new problems? I > did quickly try exporting your file but I wasn't sure how to interpret > the output.
For health reasons, I cannot at this time. > > Dan > >> >> My old relatively thorough test case with 11 specific documented >> points to test for: >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/emacs-orgmode@gnu.org/msg10877.html >> >> And my recent one, sloppily put together and reproduced here: >> >> * top >> *** an article >> sadfkaj sdnfklaj nsfklandsf >> asd flkajnd sfa >> *** an article. exporting this to ascii does not export anonymous >> footnotes >> I sometimes[fn:3] mix regular[fn:1] footnotes and inline >> [fn:: There are issues here. For example, I have to type >> them in manually. You cannot leave empty; it won't accept >> it. Maybe it has to do with my ido setup. Exporting this >> to ASCII seems to silent fail. I tried "fn:: text" and >> "fn::text".] ones[fn:2]. >> >> === >> >> [fn:1] ordinary. note that if you put point here and do c-c >> c-c, you will get sent to the next article, which is >> disconcerting. i expected it to go up to the thing that >> points to it. this situation, where you have duplicate >> footnote numbers in the same file, but different org >> entries, is very common when you refile an article. >> \par >> don't know how to separate paragraphs in a footnote in >> a way that fill-paragraph with filladapt will understand. >> would be nice if a way were possible, imo. >> >> [fn:2] another >> >> [fn:3] a third >> # a comment >> *** another article >> ordinary [fn:1], inline[fn:This is a test.], and >> regular[fn:2] footnotes. >> >> === >> >> [fn:1] regular >> >> [fn:2] usual >> *** another article >> asdfj alkdfn akljdn fklajdf >> askdfn al;ksjnf lajdnf klajdnf >> skjdhflakjdnf klajnf [fn:1] >> >> [fn:1] test >> *** another article >> asdknf lakjdnf ak >> asdkjfn aldjf >> >> >> On 2010-04-16, Dan Davison <davi...@stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>> I hadn't forgotten about this but I have been conscious that I wasn't >>> giving it the testing it deserved. I don't export with footnotes that >>> much, and when I do it tends to be to HTML. So I haven't noticed any >>> problems, but perhaps some others who use footnotes more seriously than >>> me could test out this patch for a bit? Sorry, I know I should have sent >>> this email ages ago! > -- Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb? A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years] ========== Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
