~jonsterling added feature 1 year, 1 month ago

~jonsterling added needs-design 1 year, 6 days ago

~jonsterling 1 year, 1 day ago

I'm now thinking about this ticket more seriously, prompted by Tim Hosgood. On reflection, I think that each footnote should actually be a tree — which can be referenced or transcluded anywhere. Likewise, any existing tree should be able to be used as a footnote.

Therefore, I am thinking that we should add a new command like:

\footnote{xxx-NNNN}

that renders a superscript link (what this link does when you click it may be decided later). Naturally, we also need a convenient way to create the actual content of the footnote. It occurs to me that the right approach may simply be a version of \subtree that emits a tree without transcluding it. Therefore, a tree that includes some footnotes might look like this:

\p{Blah blah blah.\footnote{xxx-NNNN}.}

\emit-tree[xxx-NNNN]{
 \p{This is the content of the footnote.}
}

Does this seem reasonable?

~dannypsnl 1 year, 1 day ago

I thought footnote will be a list of strings, what will emit-tree do?

~jonsterling 1 year, 1 day ago

@Dannypsnl I'm confused, why would footnotes be a list of strings ?? Surely there is formatting, and plenty of other things that would appear in a footnote?

Regarding emit-tree, it would just add a tree to the forest with the specified contents. (Analogous to \subtree, but without automatically transcluding it.)

~dannypsnl 1 year, 1 day ago

I mean footnotes is listed at the end of an article, do you mean emit-tree will attach text for xxx-NNNN, but will not transclude the tree immediately?

~thosgood 11 months ago

This seems like a sensible solution, but it would be convenient to have a macro at least that allows one to simply write the emitted-tree "inline", e.g.

\p{Blach blah blah.\footnote[xxx-NNNN]{This is the content of the footnote}}

where, as for subtrees, the [xxx-NNNN] is optional.

~jonsterling 11 months ago

~thosgood, that akes sense.