On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:24:50 +0200 Hans Hagen wrote:

you use the wrong command and there is also the scope parameter

\setupnotes[footnote][split=verystrict,scope=page]

Can you clarify this? The syntax is confusing, probably because it has evolved. Currently, I use: \setupnotation [footnote] [way=bypage,numberconversion=set 2] for example, but maybe this is no longer the recommended syntax? Also, in order to restore gobbled space following,% \startfootnote \stopfootnote I use the following setup: \setupnote [footnote] [next={ }] So \setupnotation, \setupnote, \setupnotes is confusing. Of course, there is strc-not.mkvi:\let\setupnotes\setupnote so \setupnotes is just a synonym for \setupnote. And then there is also: strc-not.mkvi:\let\setupnotations\setupnotation From what I understand, footnotes can be handled using different mechanisms, and this is why it gets confusing for users. Alan

On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Marco Patzer wrote:

http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Unexpected_behavior#Footnotes:_The_Difference_...

I wasn't aware of this page - thanks a lot, this is VERY useful! Thomas

On 7/24/2013 1:34 PM, Alan Bowen wrote:

Thanks to all for drawing my attention to the wiki page on \setupnotation vs \setupnote and thanks to Hans for introducing the scope key.

not so much introducing ... the key was already there

In the original example, only scope=page gets the footnote calls and the footnotes on the same page.

So what is the difference between the split and scope keys and what does scope=text do?

being even more strict (using different control mechanism) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------