"Sean M. Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 10:17 PM 2001-03-13 +0000, Jon Ericson wrote:
> >[...]
> >First place a mark with the C<N> interior sequence. Pod translators
> >use the contents of the mark as a footnote ID which must match
> >C</^[\d*]+$/>. Sometime after the mark is placed, use the footnote
> >[...]
>
> Why force people to do their own note numbering? I think the mark should
> be merely a unique tag (so might as well have to contain just about
> anything) which isn't displayed; a note-number (produced by a per-document
> counter) should just be generated every time a new mark is found.
You cut the last sentence of the paragraph:
Note that the footnote ID is only used to tie a specific footnote
mark to its text---the formatter is free to renumber (or re-mark)
your footnotes.
If you look at the patch you will see that it does exactly what you
suggest, except that the footnote IDs are limited to digits and stars.
For converting to text, the limitation isn't really needed. But I
imagine some formats would need to know if the N<> contained the note
text or just an ID. Also I think star and digit footnote IDs look
better in unformatted pod.
Since the footnote ID is arbitrary anyway, what's wrong with numbers?
Jon
