Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
>
>> Clearly the current situation is not satisfactory ("You can use :lines,
>> but only if no footnotes are present. . . IOW, :lines supports a subset
>> of Org syntax.").
>>
>> I prefer converting [fn:N] references to [fn::FOOTNOTE] (see my other
>> email). Any obvious downsides?
>
> Yes: inline and regular footnotes are not equivalent. For example,
> a regular footnote can contain a table, a plain list... So this is not
> an option here.
Damn. I only saw this after changing my path to this behavior. Good
point anyway. Though the idea of a table in a footnote is truly
horrifying.
> I think required definitions should be extracted from the included file
> and inserted at the end of the source file, without any footnote
> section.
The "hard" solution. I will look into it.
> However, it would be nice to store associations between files
> and footnote labels in, e.g., a hash table, in order to avoid inserting
> multiple times the same footnote.
What is your reasoning for this statement? Aesthetics, performance or
something else?
—Rasmus
--
Dobbelt-A
