# [XeTeX] footnotes with opentype superscript, and bibtex with xetex (quotes and hyphens)

Álex Bueno lists+tex+xetex at bueno.imap.cc
Mon Feb 5 22:46:54 CET 2007

On 05 Feb 2007, at 7:07 am, Will Robertson wrote:

> If you wish to continue with the codes, no problem; just use the
> RawFeature option:
>    \fontspec[RawFeature={+sups,-onum}]{...}
> It still won't validate your input though (i.e., check that the
> feature exists in the font). Maybe I should change that.

Does using the other format (Numbers=Lining) validate?

> Hmmm. I can't reproduce the problem. But I'm probably not using the
> same version of fontspec as you. Does this work for you?
>
> \documentclass[12pt]{article}
> \usepackage{fontspec}
> \setmainfont{Warnock Pro}
> \begin{document}
> \makeatletter
> {Numbers=Lining,VerticalPosition=Superior}{\@thefnmark}}}
> \makeatother
> test\footnote{blah}
> \end{document}

You're right; I must not be using the same version. That gives me a
whopping 98 errors and two warnings. I'm using the fink unstable tex
installation, which includes v1.12. I'm guessing then I should be
using a more recent package. Any particular package recommendable?

> This is a pet peeve of mine. I'd like to add it as an option to the
> footmisc package. Bringhurst recommends this style, by the way, so
> you're in good company to desire this formatting. I use something
> like this:
>
> \renewcommand\@makefntext[1]{%
>    \vspace{2pt}%
>    \setlength\parindent{-1.8em}%
>    \setlength\leftskip{1.8em}%
>    \makebox[1.8em][l]{\normalfont\small\@thefnmark.}#1}
>
> I'm not sure if this is optimal, but it does what I want. It'd be
> much better to use a new length rather than hard coding "1.8em" in
> those three places.

I actually know a professor who still uses Word 5.1 specifically
because of this.

And according to Chicago (which incidentally doesn't work too well in
TeX using jurabib with footnote citations), the note numbers should
be full size, not raise and followed by a period.

Anyway, there's something wrong with that code above; maybe it's just
because I'm not up to date. It doesn't like the \@makefntext. It
compiles but gives a 'Missing \begin{document}' warning, and prints
out akefntext. So I tried getting rid of the '@' (\makefntext), and
that didn't work either.