TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2008-05 > 1209842749

From: Dennis Lee Bieber <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Citation reference code proposal
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 12:25:49 -0700
References: <><> <000901c8ad46$c00777d0$40166770$@net>
In-Reply-To: <000901c8ad46$c00777d0$40166770$@net>

On or about 5/3/2008 10:54 AM a carrier pigeon from Teresa Elliott delivered:

>No, the citation number is all I need, NOT double footnotes. <G> But yes, I
>would like the citation number to print by both the date and the place. Now
>I think we are understanding each other. <G> The Footnote NUMBER is all I
>need to be duplicated, and I would prefer that TMG use the same number
>instead of using the next number in line. Then I would only have one
>footnote per number.

Unfortunately, if you use word processor output AND word
processor features, it may not be possible... This would require the
word processor to support using the same foot/end-note "insertion" in
multiple places. It would be much easier for a report writer program
to generate new footnote numbers (which, as I show below, are really
being generated by the word processor if used, not by the report
writer) and "IBID" the subsequent ones if possible.

Hmmm.... Strange -- Office 2002 has gotten "too smart"... At
one time, it was possible to do a "show codes" (<alt><F9>) for
end/foot-notes, and when one chose that option, one saw -- INLINE
with the text -- the entire footnote contents, not just a dynamic
number reference. Instead of (this is a fictional display):

Some sentence with an endnote.{E#342#}

(The 342 is NOT the footnote display number, just an internally
generated reference; the display number is generated when displaying
by counting the E#...# in sequence)... One used to see

Some sentence with an endnote.{E#342# The end note text
contents are here, not at the end of the document file}

I can still get that type of display for page and
cross-reference (table/figure numbers), but no longer for
en/foot-notes. I can get it with RTF output sent to a plain text
editor (notepad).

\par Descendants of Barbe Zahm (1)\f0 \fs22 \b0 \i0 \par \sl220 \par
\par \ql \par \par \qc \i1 Generation One\i0 \par \par \ql
\par \b1 1\b0 . Barbe\f1 \fs18 \i1 \super1 1\f0 \fs22 \i0
\nosupersub \b1 Zahm\b0 (1) (Adam, #2){\super\chftn}{\footnote \qj
\f0 \fs22 {\super\chftn}Carol McKenzie, online
, (zahm.ftw), downloaded 04 Oct 2007.}\f1 \fs18
\super1 ,\f0 \fs22 \nosupersub {\super\chftn}{\footnote \qj \f0 \fs22
{\super\chftn}Ibid.}\f1 \fs18 \super1 ,\f0 \fs22 \nosupersub
{\super\chftn}{\footnote \qj \f0 \fs22 {\super\chftn}Ibid.} was born
in 1763 Moselle Obergaibach, France.{\super\chftn}{\footnote \qj \f0
\fs22 {\super\chftn}Ibid.} She died in 1813.{\super\chftn}{\footnote
\qj \f0 \fs22 {\super\chftn}Ibid., Fom greg wolf.}\par

(as seen in Word -- ignoring font/style codes... Interesting; the
paste from Word into Eudora created the footnotes too, not just the
reference numbers!)


Descendants of Barbe Zahm (1)

Generation One

1. Barbe1 Zahm (1) (Adam, #2)[1],[2],[3] was born in 1763
Moselle Obergaibach, France.[4] She died in 1813.[5]

[1]Carol McKenzie, online , (zahm.ftw),
downloaded 04 Oct 2007.
[5]Ibid., Fom greg wolf.


Notice how: 1) the text of the footnote is embedded inline
in the RTF file and, 2) the RTF file does NOT have any footnote
numbers inside the chain of codes -- do you see a "5" anywhere in:
{\footnote \qj \f0 \fs22 {\super\chftn}Ibid., Fom greg wolf.} --
just, perhaps, a "series" code by which the numbering sequence is isolated.

In order to reuse a foot/end-note index requires giving up
the ability to have them renumber during word-processor editing -- or
restricts one to a small subset of word-processor formats that may
support reusing an autogenerated marker while suppressing the
associated text. Which does not, as shown, include simple RTF format
(and probably not the two competing "open document" formats).

From where I sit, the easiest feature WG could implement,
which requires no additional sentence/memo codes, and no expansion of
the surety boxes, would be to allow a report option to place markers
into sentences based upon non-blank surety boxes... if the date
surety is non-blank, put a marker immediately after the date in the
output sentence, etc. Unfortunately, this will not support split
memos, or memos consisting of parts extracted from multiple sources;
it would only be a fast implementation to get more than
end-of-sentence chunking.

Lee Bieber

This thread: