[XeTeX] Footnote refs

[Fr. Michael Gilmary]

Well, I've got some sample files attached for the change of behavior. If 
you comment both \input files, then you'll get footnote refs to match 
the \setmainfont options (in this case, Numbers={OldStyle, Proportional}).

If you load one or the other input file, you'll see the differences. 
Linux Libertine ships with TL10, I believe, and has the required sups 
feature to see the results.

The default behavior of XeTeX previous to TL10, AFAIK, was to use the 
footnote ref numbers as if using the [VerticalPosition=Superior] option. 
But no longer! So, the result now (with these input files) is that it's 
working for me as it used to word and as desired ... but I don't know 
what was done by default before --- I never used to specify anything via 
fontspec for the footnote refs --- and I don't know why it's been changed.

Has anyone else noticed this and desired the older way? If so, this is 
your solution ... unless there's another way...?


-- 
United in adoration of Jesus, 



fr. michael gilmary, mma

Most Holy Trinity Monastery
67 Dugway Road
Petersham, MA 01366-9725

www.MaroniteMonks.org


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: footnoteproblem.tex
Type: application/x-tex
Size: 1698 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20101221/e6f9c93f/attachment.tex>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RealSuperscript.tex
Type: application/x-tex
Size: 914 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20101221/e6f9c93f/attachment-0001.tex>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TextSuperscript.tex
Type: application/x-tex
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/xetex/attachments/20101221/e6f9c93f/attachment-0002.tex>