Hi Klaus, Klaus Schilling <[email protected]> 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’. _______________________________________________ Skribilo-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/skribilo-users
