https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159137
--- Comment #3 from William Friedman <will.fried...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2) > (In reply to William Friedman from comment #0) > > ...if the cross-referenced note is adjacent to the current note, > > one writes "see previous/next note"... > Do you have a reference for this, something like CMAS or APA? In the style guides I consulted (CMOS, MLA, APA, OSCOLA), the broader issue of internal cross-references is not addressed explicitly, only references to other works mentioned in the immediately preceding footnote (see CMOS 17, 14.34). The use of "see next/previous note" is quite common in academic writing; go to scholar.google.com and search for "see next note" (5K hits) and "see previous note" (9K hits). In response to Stephane's suggestion, however, I need to stress that I'm not talking only about cross-referencing previous references to other works, but to *internal cross-referencing*. E.g. (in the text below, <> refers to what is shaded as the field reference and [] describes what the reference points to). fn1: I am discussing issue X. fn2: I am discussing issue Y; for a discussion of issue X, see <the previous note> [xref to fn1]. I will address issue Z in <the next note> [xref to fn3]. fn3: I am discussing issue Z. For a discussion of issue X, see <n. 1> [xref to fn1]; for a discussion of issue Y, see <the previous note> [xref to fn2]. Were this to be implemented, the wording would need to be customizable (so that it could be used for internal cross-referencing as described, or for ibid. or whatever). > Before/after a strong relative references, same as Ibid., and moving text > around would have to turn this into into absolute and variable references. > It's not like "before" which is always true. For example, if the page break > occurs after some editing between the two items, would "previous" become a > hard reference? I don't understand what you mean here. My request is specifically for referencing one footnote/endnote from another footnote/endnote, so page breaks wouldn't be relevant. It would have no relevance in the body of the text, just like "above/below" is, AFAICT, meaningless in the body of the text now, even though I can insert it. I also don't understand what you mean when you write that "it's not like 'before' which is always true." (Do you mean "above"/"below" when you write 'before'?) Isn't that also by definition a relative reference? > I think it's better to manually type these words as they are niche use > cases. To understand the problem, consider my example above. Let's say that I put fn2 before fn1. Properly updated, it would read as follows: fn1: I am discussing issue Y; for a discussion of issue X, see <the next note> [xref to fn2]. I will address issue Z in <n. 3> [xref to fn3]. fn2: I am discussing issue X. fn3: I am discussing issue Z. For a discussion of issue X, see <the previous note> [xref to fn2]; for a discussion of issue Y, see <n. 1> [xref to fn1]. As currently constituted, all of this would need to be manually updated. Repeat over thousands of footnotes and changes of this nature, and you see the problem. I guess one question is how to define "niche." Are 14K hits on Google Scholar niche use cases? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
