[XeTeX] XeLatex + Unicode + Footnote issue

[John Was]

I did, as an experiment, quickly try some Arabic text in an Edmac-generated footnote, and it worked.  That is not to say that Edmac will hold up in all circumstances, though.  One advantage of trying it out would be that if it does indeed work, then the issue would be with Bigfoot and not the font itself.  If it doesn't work, you are perhaps not any further forward...

John




----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sreenivasa Guttal 
  To: Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms 
  Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [XeTeX] XeLatex + Unicode + Footnote issue


  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 
      To: news3 at nililand.de ; Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms 
      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






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20090319/8c45aeea/attachment.html