Re: [Orgmode] footnote export fails if footnote indented

[Samuel Wales]

Here are 2 test cases for footnotes.  Perhaps they can be put in a
test directory somewhere if they are useful.

My old relatively thorough test case with 11 specific documented
points to test for:

http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/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 <address@hidden> 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