Re: [skribilo-users] Footnotes omitted on single-page HTML documents

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Klaus,

Klaus Schilling <address@hidden> skribis:

> First, the footnotes appeared twice, even in documents as simple as
>
> (document (footnote "foobar"))
>
> I was able to fix that in the case of simple documents by means of
> replacing
>
> (cons n containers)
>
> with
>
> containers
>  
> .

Indeed, that’s the right change, because ‘find-down’ returns nodes that
matches the predicate, *including* N itself (and yes, it could use some
documentation...)

Now, there were other subtleties; see commit 3d6d887.  I’ve tested with
both single-file and multiple-file documents, and it seems to work.
You’re welcome to double-check, as usual.  :-)

It would be nice to have test cases for that, but I’m not sure how to
write them.

> Next, both the markup writers for footnote and for html-footnotes
> nest the <a> attributes. This is not legal html, and it wreaks havoc
> e.g. when postprocessing the html produced by skribilo with xsltproc.
>
> Further, &html-footnotes concludes with a
>
> (display "<div>")
>
> It should really be a 
>
> (display "</div>")
>
> otherwise there are too many open <div> tags that get never closed.

Indeed, fixed.

[...]

> The following is not a bug, just a suggestion.
>
> The code for &html-footnotes separates the footnotes from each other
> just by a <br>. I changed it in my copy to wrapping each of the notes
> into a <div class ="footnote">[...]</div>. This, while looking not
> much different with most browsers, allows for easier use of additional
> CSS or postprocessing with html parsers. 

Indeed.  Applied in 1096e7a.

There are many other places where similar changes could be made.  I’m
just a little wary because such changes are likely to change the output
of existing documents in noticeable ways.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Ludo’.