Re: org-html: subtree specific footnote references
Suhail Shergill <suhailshergill <at> gmail.com>
2012-07-10 04:18:25 GMT
Jambunathan K <kjambunathan <at> gmail.com> 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 org file?
that is the use case, yes.
> 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?
> Confusion is like to be pronounced, if the reader chooses to also print out
> the document as a pdf or into paper.
again, i'm not sure what scenario you're describing.
i was only describing a scenario where the patch is useful. allow me to try
with the current patch, if the user selects the entire org file and exports it,
there will only be *one* footnotes section, albeit the footnote references and
definitions (which aren't visible unless someone inspects the source) will be
annotated with the CUSTOM_ID property value should it be defined.