I realise that I should have been talking about the space between local footnotes, rather than interlinespace (previous email on this issue), but my basic problem still stands. My efforts to influence the space between footnotes placed locally is to no avail so far. I assume it is \setupnote (rather than \setupnotation, my earlier mistake) where I would need to somehow influence distance between footnotes which is currently too large. I have tried \setupnote[before={\blank[small]}, after={\blank[small]}]. It appears to be reducing the space before the entire block of local footnotes but not between the footnotes themselves, which is what I am trying to do. Am I correct in assuming that the \setupnote should influence my \placelocalfootnotes? Or is there something else I should do in the case of local footnotes as distinct from general footnotes (my document contains ONLY local footnotes, however). It seems a simple enough issue, but I just can't get it right. Julian
Am 23.04.23 um 09:21 schrieb jbf via ntg-context:
I realise that I should have been talking about the space between local footnotes, rather than interlinespace (previous email on this issue), but my basic problem still stands. My efforts to influence the space between footnotes placed locally is to no avail so far.
I assume it is \setupnote (rather than \setupnotation, my earlier mistake) where I would need to somehow influence distance between footnotes which is currently too large. I have tried \setupnote[before={\blank[small]}, after={\blank[small]}]. It appears to be reducing the space before the entire block of local footnotes but not between the footnotes themselves, which is what I am trying to do.
Did you try "inbetween" or "distance"? (I’d assume the latter is for the distance between number and text, but inbetween is usually vertically.) https://wiki.contextgarden.net/Command/setupnote
Am I correct in assuming that the \setupnote should influence my \placelocalfootnotes? Or is there something else I should do in the case of local footnotes as distinct from general footnotes (my document contains ONLY local footnotes, however).
I was wondering if \setupnote[localfootnote][…] makes sense, but I can’t find in the sources if local footnotes are setup differently from general one. Hraban
I tried all those Hraban, unsuccessfully, but finally 'happened' upon a solution by trying whitespace instead in the setups. Except that I had read somewhere in the mailing list (Pablo I think) that I would need to use \directsetup. I don't actually understand why, have never been sure about what \directsetup does, but there's no doubt it works in this case! So the following has done what I needed: \startsetups[setups:footnotes] \setupwhitespace[.01em] \stopsetups \setupnote[before=\directsetup{setups:footnotes}] Julian On 23/4/23 20:34, Henning Hraban Ramm via ntg-context wrote:
Am 23.04.23 um 09:21 schrieb jbf via ntg-context:
I realise that I should have been talking about the space between local footnotes, rather than interlinespace (previous email on this issue), but my basic problem still stands. My efforts to influence the space between footnotes placed locally is to no avail so far.
I assume it is \setupnote (rather than \setupnotation, my earlier mistake) where I would need to somehow influence distance between footnotes which is currently too large. I have tried \setupnote[before={\blank[small]}, after={\blank[small]}]. It appears to be reducing the space before the entire block of local footnotes but not between the footnotes themselves, which is what I am trying to do.
Did you try "inbetween" or "distance"? (I’d assume the latter is for the distance between number and text, but inbetween is usually vertically.)
https://wiki.contextgarden.net/Command/setupnote
Am I correct in assuming that the \setupnote should influence my \placelocalfootnotes? Or is there something else I should do in the case of local footnotes as distinct from general footnotes (my document contains ONLY local footnotes, however).
I was wondering if \setupnote[localfootnote][…] makes sense, but I can’t find in the sources if local footnotes are setup differently from general one.
Hraban
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : https://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
Am 23.04.23 um 23:36 schrieb jbf via ntg-context:
I tried all those Hraban, unsuccessfully, but finally 'happened' upon a solution by trying whitespace instead in the setups. Except that I had read somewhere in the mailing list (Pablo I think) that I would need to use \directsetup. I don't actually understand why, have never been sure about what \directsetup does, but there's no doubt it works in this case! So the following has done what I needed:
I’m sorry, I didn’t test my suggestion. In MkIV, \directsetup or \fastsetup are a bit faster than \setup. They can load only one setup and catch less errors. In LMTX, they don’t make sense any more. Hraban
Well, Hraban, you say that \directsetup makes no sense any more in LMTX, but in this case (I use LMTX, not MKIV) I tried it without \directsetup, it did not work and furthermore I got an error. That is why I commented that I did not understand what \directsetup really does (or doesn't do as you are suggesting). For now the immediate problem is resolved, and I am happy about that, but I don't understand why it works with \directsetup but not without it in LMTX (my version December last year) Julian On 24/4/23 17:33, Henning Hraban Ramm via ntg-context wrote:
Am 23.04.23 um 23:36 schrieb jbf via ntg-context:
I tried all those Hraban, unsuccessfully, but finally 'happened' upon a solution by trying whitespace instead in the setups. Except that I had read somewhere in the mailing list (Pablo I think) that I would need to use \directsetup. I don't actually understand why, have never been sure about what \directsetup does, but there's no doubt it works in this case! So the following has done what I needed:
I’m sorry, I didn’t test my suggestion.
In MkIV, \directsetup or \fastsetup are a bit faster than \setup. They can load only one setup and catch less errors. In LMTX, they don’t make sense any more.
Hraban ___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : https://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
Am 24.04.23 um 11:21 schrieb jbf via ntg-context:
Well, Hraban, you say that \directsetup makes no sense any more in LMTX, but in this case (I use LMTX, not MKIV) I tried it without \directsetup, it did not work and furthermore I got an error. That is why I commented that I did not understand what \directsetup really does (or doesn't do as you are suggesting).
For now the immediate problem is resolved, and I am happy about that, but I don't understand why it works with \directsetup but not without it in LMTX (my version December last year)
Sorry, that was what Hans told me. Maybe I misunderstood. Seems like \directsetup is still necessary in this case, so I must fix my documentation. Hraban
I tried all those Hraban, unsuccessfully, but finally 'happened' upon a solution by trying whitespace instead in the setups. Except that I had read somewhere in the mailing list (Pablo I think) that I would need to use \directsetup. I don't actually understand why, have never been sure about what \directsetup does, but there's no doubt it works in this case! So the following has done what I needed: \startsetups[setups:footnotes] \setupwhitespace[.01em] \stopsetups \setupnote[before=\directsetup{setups:footnotes}] Julian On 23/4/23 20:34, Henning Hraban Ramm via ntg-context wrote:
Am 23.04.23 um 09:21 schrieb jbf via ntg-context:
I realise that I should have been talking about the space between local footnotes, rather than interlinespace (previous email on this issue), but my basic problem still stands. My efforts to influence the space between footnotes placed locally is to no avail so far.
I assume it is \setupnote (rather than \setupnotation, my earlier mistake) where I would need to somehow influence distance between footnotes which is currently too large. I have tried \setupnote[before={\blank[small]}, after={\blank[small]}]. It appears to be reducing the space before the entire block of local footnotes but not between the footnotes themselves, which is what I am trying to do.
Did you try "inbetween" or "distance"? (I’d assume the latter is for the distance between number and text, but inbetween is usually vertically.)
https://wiki.contextgarden.net/Command/setupnote
Am I correct in assuming that the \setupnote should influence my \placelocalfootnotes? Or is there something else I should do in the case of local footnotes as distinct from general footnotes (my document contains ONLY local footnotes, however).
I was wondering if \setupnote[localfootnote][…] makes sense, but I can’t find in the sources if local footnotes are setup differently from general one.
Hraban
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : https://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
participants (2)
-
Henning Hraban Ramm -
jbf