https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163974
--- Comment #14 from Jambunathan K <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #9) > Or even, since the syntax is conforming, it should be silently accepted; the > unsupported part should be dropped (no artificial rearrangement is needed, > if it's unsupported; if we decide to support it, then we should first decide > what does it mean). It needs no warnings to user, just the same way as we > don't show warnings when load unsupported markup maybe generated by newer > versions, etc. Any data loss has to reported to the user ... See attachment for how I imagine nested footnotes may be "imported" (or even "implemented") https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=197710 I have not thought a lot about how the re-write may happen, so I am offering the attachment as "an initial offering" further "brainstorming". -------- Even though, I don't use LaTeX much, I can confidently it is NOT "abnormal" to expect chaining of footnote definitions in the LaTeX documents. (Much of Emacs community are academics and they use LaTeX regularly. The Emacs / LaTeX community feels that it is OK to have "nested footnotes") There was a specific reason why I have flagged this issue for review (or atleast a note) by someone who is active in OpenDocument-spec forums. Not being able to capture "nested footnotes" is an handicap to ODF format, may be. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
