Design decisions, Footnotes

[Rob Beezer]

A question about footnotes. I won't re-iterate my general feelings about footnotes.

Short version: how useful is the ability to cross-reference a #fn? As in "See
Footnote 5.3.6."

Long version:

I am going to work on variations for the schema that allow general stuff, but
exclude anything numbered. There are many places where this makes sense, like
say a #caption. We generally just utilize the "serial number". So the sixth
#fn in Section 5.3 is usually just shown as "6", withou the "structure number"
5.3. But if you #xref that #fn, we want to disambiguate the cross-reference as
5.3.6.

Options.

1. Ban footnotes entirely.

2. Ban #xref pointing to #fn.

3. Adjust how an #xref to a #fn displays, using a form like "See Footnote 6 in
Section 5.3", or just "See Footnote 6" when the #xref and the #fn are *both* in
Section 5.3. This would help when an #fn is inside a division #title (yes, this
is a thing - gives me heartburn).

4. Always default to using just the serial number if the full number is the
document default, "See Footnote 6." If you restart numbering at #chapter (say)
then you should not #xref outside the chapter and a printed book will be OK. Or
you should number from 1 to 937 across the entire book. In other words, the
PreTeXt structure number is just an odd thing and folks will get along just fine
without it (they can always choose the "See Footnote 6 in Section 5.3." form, it
is available now).

5. Ban footnotes in places where structure numbers are wonky: #title (to a
division), #introduction (to a division), #conclusion (for a division).

6. Something else.

Rob

[Oscar Levin]

The answer is clearly option 2.  Anything worth cross referencing should not be put in a footnote. 

Or, footnotes can only be referenced in other footnotes so to get an xref to a footnote you create a foot note and then it automatically creates a new link to the previous footnote that contains its entire contents.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/MTAwMDA0MS5iZWV6ZXI.1782918473%40pnsh.

[Sean Fitzpatrick]

Would it be fair to say that if you've got something to say that's important enough to want to cross-reference, but not important enough to interrupt the flow is reading, then that something belongs in an aside, rather than a footnote? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/CAOU9BaXoFdgGZZ44XCWXy1%3D_M8R2w5gtK7QPOCO%3D%3Dc%2BfHFm_hw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mitch Keller]

I agree that option 2 is best. Asides are nice, but they’re not numbered…I guess you can probably xref to them by title, which wouldn’t be horrible.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/CAH%2BNcPb9Hv8FhMGRw6H_AQ5L95SzH-%3Di_QuB0Mm%3Db7anKCqQvw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
Mitch Keller
mi...@rellek.net

http://www.rellek.net/

[kcri...@gmail.com]

If I may weigh in on this softly as someone not actively developing (but actively watching and advertising), I would point out that while in the mathematics world referring to footnotes may not be common or even desirable, in the humanities world it's not unusual.  Footnotes/endnotes often have complex constellations of citations and other information (sometimes very long!) which needs reminding of hundreds of pages later, and referring to a footnote - even in a footnote, yes - is the most efficient way to do this.

That doesn't mean PTX needs to support that behavior, per se, either in theory or in terms of developer heartburn.  But design decisions may make it easier or harder, or just less likely, for certain fields to adopt PTX for certain types of publications.

If I were to express a specific preference, I think combining Oscar's idea with 3. seems plausible as a middle ground.  That is to say, only allow fn xrefs in footnotes, where it would only allow display as "see footnote 6 in section 5.3".  This would still sharply curtail where footnote xrefs are allowed (presumably helping development) and look a little bit more like what is typical in fields that do this more often.  

<fn>I've never seen anything like "footnote 4.6.2", it's always something closer to "see footnote 5" - also depending on whether footnotes are numbered continuously or by chapter.  See any Supreme Court decision for references by page number and footnote of the style "Contra, ante, at 21, n. 5.", once again often within the footnotes.  Even more extreme, see [1] for an example of a style for referencing a footnote in *another* work.</fn>

<aside>Endnotes seem to be getting much more popular nowadays, particularly with "popular" books that still want proper connections to the literature, but also in scholarly texts.  I'm not presumptuous enough to suggest PTX implementing endnotes, which would probably cause more than just heartburn, but just FYI that I could imagine an actual author requesting this someday.</aside>

[1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/170057/chicago-manual-of-style-notes-in-footnotes

[Mitch Keller]

I’m not sure that I agree that the examples provided here are within the scope of the question, as they are referencing footnotes in other works. This is no different than me putting “See Theorem 3.7.9 in Levin’s Discrete Mathematics: An Open Introduction for more details.” somewhere in Applied Combinatorics. The author of the referencing work is writing after the referenced work is complete and is referring to a number that has been fixed, and I would need to update my reference if Oscar adds another numbered thing to section 3.7 of DMOI before the one that I’m referencing.

I do agree that footnote 4.6.2 is not something I’ve seen, and I think it could potentially be confusing for readers in a print version. Something like “see footnote 2 in Section 4.6” (and in some disciplines, probably just “cf. n. 2 in Section 4.6”) is a more sensible way to go if xrefing to footnotes is going to be allowed.

Perhaps we should make sure that Principle 5 is our North Star here: is referencing to footnotes both common and reasonable?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/c98eb714-82fb-484a-ba46-9fcf95d13848n%40googlegroups.com.

[kcri...@gmail.com]

I’m not sure that I agree that the examples provided here are within the scope of the question, as they are referencing footnotes in other works.

Sorry if I made it sound like that; only link [1] was an example of referencing in other works, the rest was definitely about the main question.

 

Perhaps we should make sure that Principle 5 is our North Star here: is referencing to footnotes both common and reasonable?

The tl;dr of my comment is, "yes, in some disciplines".  But perhaps the types of works in those disciplines that would need this functionality are unlikely to use PTX now or in the foreseeable future - see Principle 1, "textbooks and research papers".  Could the very use of the word "papers" indicates that a lot of monographs in the humanities (or court opinions) might fall outside PTX scope?  In which I case I (speaking only for myself) suggest expanding Principle 1, but I anticipate most might not agree with that, in which case Mitch's comment is well taken.

By the way, it might be helpful to put "List 1.1.1. PreTeXt Principles" from the guide, or at least a brief link to it, somewhere on the main page, since it's considered to be so foundational.  Otherwise, by the hypertext nature of the guide, a lot of users may skip directly to/search for whatever they are looking for and not even be aware of its existence :-)

[Rob Beezer]

On 7/2/26 09:08, kcri...@gmail.com wrote:
> By the way, it might be helpful to put "List 1.1.1. PreTeXt Principles" from the
> guide, or at least a brief link to it, somewhere on the main page, since it's
> considered to be so foundational.  Otherwise, by the hypertext nature of the
> guide, a lot of users may skip directly to/search for whatever they are looking
> for and not even be aware of its existence :-)

Please start a new thread for any further discussion of website content. I do
not want to try to follow this discussion once hijacked.