[projectaon] Re: Diffs for comment periods
- From: Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:14:06 +0200
2011/9/21 Ingo Kloecker <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wednesday 21 September 2011, Thomas Wolmer wrote:
>> 2011/9/21 Jonathan Blake <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Jonathan Blake
> <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ingo Kloecker
>> >>
>> >> <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday 21 September 2011, Jonathan Blake wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Chris Neilson
>> >>>
>> >>> <crusty.chris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 17:56 -0700, Jonathan Blake wrote:
>> >>>> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Simon Osborne
>> >>>
>> >>> <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>> >> > Denis Vald has posted some suggestions on the forum here,
>> >>>> >> > though these mostly refer to the later Magnakai books:
>> >>>> >> > <http://projectaon.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&;
>> >>>> >> > board =helpwanted&thread=706&post=37303>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> "11/Equipment: There's a superfluous footnote (Nr. 2 and 4
>> >>>> >> are identical)"
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> There are identical footnotes because the text itself is
>> >>>> >> redundant. It mentions twice that you can only carry 12
>> >>>> >> special items. I suppose we could remove footnote 4,
>> >>>> >> however.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > cant you just point both footnote references to footnote
>> >>>> > number 2?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regrettably, no. Our current XSL isn't smart enough to know how
>> >>>> to number the footnotes correctly if we do that. Anyone want to
>> >>>> make it smarter? :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Hmm. Is our XSL smart enough to reference footnote 2 in footnote
>> >>> 4? This way we'd avoid the identical footnotes, but still have
>> >>> them separated. Or does the same problem with the footnote
>> >>> numbering apply here?
>> >>
>> >> I hadn't thought of doing that, but I think we would have to do it
>> >> as a regular idref rather than a footref element because the same
>> >> problem would apply.
>> >
>> > And we wouldn't be able to have the idref reference the
>> > automatically generated footnote number, unfortunately.
>>
>> Do we really need the links from the footnotes to the footnote
>> markers? If we skipped those and made the footrefs id-less, it would
>> be easy...
>
> Hmm, I guess this is needed (or at least much more convenient) for the
> xhtml-simple versions where the footnotes are all gathered in the
> Footnotes section at the end of the huge HTML page. For the other
> versions (i.e. multi-page HTML, PDF, etc.) the links are probably not
> really needed because the pages are not that long.
Right... but we could perhaps have the footnotes in xhtml-simple link
back to just the section they appear in?
--
Thomas
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
