Oh, my bad. I was working from dim memory of the past. I wonder if LaTeX changed its footnote handling somewhere along the line, or whether I'm just wrong full stop. Not interesting in the present context. Best, Dominik
On 8 October 2015 at 12:12, David Carlisle <d.p.carli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 October 2015 at 17:53, Dominik Wujastyk <wujas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The original questioner said he was doing a critical edition. If he's > using > > EDMAC or LEDMAC then perhaps I can note that EDMAC does some work to > avoid > > setting footnote text in "restricted horizontal mode". Restricted > > horizontal mode does a number of annoying things to text, including (I > > think) things affecting hyphenation; Plain TeX goes to some lengths to > set > > footnotes in unrestricted mode. But LaTeX doesn't bother with these > > niceties. However, EDMAC does. > > > > Best, > > Dominik > > > > The attached fnfix.sty file fixes LaTeX footnotes so that they're set in > > unrestricted horizontal mode. > > > > > > ??? both standard latex footnotes and the paragraphed footnotes used > from footmisc in the original question use unrestricted horizontal > mode, if you set them in an hbox (restricted hmode) they wouldn't work > at all if longer than a line. > > The code posted allows catcode changes > > % LaTeX style to redefine the \footnote command such that it allows the > % altering of catcodes. > % From: Joerg-Martin Schwarz <@MVS.GSI.DE:UPH508@DDOHRZ11.BITNET> > % August 1992 > > > but that's unrelated (and by design not included in standard latex > footnotes) > > David > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex >
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
