[XeTeX] XeLatex + Unicode + Footnote issue

[Sreenivasa Guttal]

Thanks for your comments.

I choose bigfoot as it provided most of the features I wanted to have. But,
I can check if edmac satisfies my requirements, but before, are we saying
that it is a footnote package issue? Considering that it works for some
fonts, I was wondering if the issue is somewhere else. Specifically, if
edmac works for the same fonts, where bigfoot does not, then it could be a
footnote package issue.

Regards,
Sreenivasa

2009/3/19 John Was <john.was at ntlworld.com>

>  Hello
>
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but if the task in hand is
> creation of a critical edition, the Edmac package may serve your needs.  It
> allows several layers of footnotes (up to five by default, I think, though
> more can be added), and each one can be formatted differently:  I have used
> run-on app. crit. style in conjunction with two-column editorial footnotes
> and full-width original footnotes, each with a different cueing system (*
> etc. for authorial notes, superior italic letters for app. crit. [but
> line-numbers can be used too if one doesn't want to clutter up the text with
> cues], normal superscript numbers for editorial notes).  Edmac's system of
> automatically extracting the lemma from the text and putting it in the app.
> crit. is a little tortuous, I find, so I have always provided the lemmata
> myself within the app. crit. note - but the package itself has
> proved robust, both in old EmTeX and now in XeTeX (I haven't used LaTeX
> varieties though have often been tempted!).
>
> When I last looked at Bigfoot, it seemed to provide a great deal of extra
> functionality, but if you don't require all that, Edmac might work.  You do
> need to read the documentation with some care (though nowadays I tend to
> copy and adapt macros that I've used in earlier work, so I'm rather hazy
> myself about the finer points).
>
> John
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sreenivasa Guttal <sreenivasa.guttal at gmail.com>
> *To:* news3 at nililand.de ; Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other
> platforms <xetex at tug.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:20 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [XeTeX] XeLatex + Unicode + Footnote issue
>
> Yes. For some Sanskrit fonts, I saw it partially working.
>
> I am a bit new to `tex world'. Is there a way out? This is a very important
> feature for critical editions.
>
> Thanks,
> Sreenivasa
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Ulrike Fischer <news3 at nililand.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:04:02 -0400 schrieb Patrick Carr:
>>
>> >> I can reproduce the problem even with normal english text. It seems
>> >> to be font related, some fonts gives footnotes as expected in
>> >> para-mode and other not.
>> >
>> > I thought it might be fonts with real superscript numerals versus
>> > those without, but no. Using your example with a myriad of fonts, I
>> > got newlines for each footnote regardless of the font I used. I.e., it
>> > didn't work at all for me. At least it wasn't intermittent.
>> >
>> > (This is XeTeXk, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.999.6 (Web2C 7.5.7))
>>
>>
>> I too no longer get different behaviour if I use only manyfoot
>> (that's quite confusing, I don't think that I changed something),
>> but if I use bigfoot instead it reappears: Verdana gives newline,
>> Cambria not.
>>
>> I too suspected the superscripts at first, but
>> \makeatletter\let\@textsuperscript\relax gives normal numbers but
>> doesn't change the behaviour.
>>
>> --
>> Ulrike Fischer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> XeTeX mailing list
>> postmaster at tug.org
>> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> XeTeX mailing list
> postmaster at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> XeTeX mailing list
> postmaster at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20090319/52782517/attachment-0001.html