Footnotes lost in description terms

Footnotes lost in description terms

[nico]

Hello,

When some footnotes are put in description terms, their number appears in  
the terms but their text don't appear at the bottom of the page. Is it a  
known limitation?

Here is an example:

\definedescription[descr][
   headstyle=bold,style=normal,align=left,location=hanging,
   width=broad,margin=1cm]

\setupwhitespace[medium]

\starttext

Here is a footnote\footnote{In a simple paragraph}.

\startdescr{This\footnote{A footnote} term contains\footnote{Another one} a
footnote}
This is a shorter item label, and some text\footnote{What about this?}  
that talks about it.
The text is wrapped into a paragraph, with successive lines indented.
\stopdescr

\startdescr{This\footnote{More footnotes} term contains\footnote{Another  
again} a
footnote}
This is a shorter item label, and some text that talks about it.
The text is wrapped into a paragraph, with successive lines indented.
\stopdescr

Here is a footnote\footnote{After the descriptions}.

\stoptext

Regards,
BG

Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[Hans Hagen]

nico wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When some footnotes are put in description terms, their number appears in  
> the terms but their text don't appear at the bottom of the page. Is it a  
> known limitation?
>   
of boxed stuff, indeed, so we need to postpone and flush ....

\def\@@makedescription#1%  in core-des.tex
  {\postponefootnotes % added, we assume grouped usage
   \def\currentdescription{#1}%
   \executeifdefined
     {@@description\descriptionparameter\c!location}
     {\getvalue{@@description\v!left}}}


this gives me 7 footnotes

> Here is an example:
>
> \definedescription[descr][
>    headstyle=bold,style=normal,align=left,location=hanging,
>    width=broad,margin=1cm]
>
> \setupwhitespace[medium]
>
> \starttext
>
> Here is a footnote\footnote{In a simple paragraph}.
>
> \startdescr{This\footnote{A footnote} term contains\footnote{Another one} a
> footnote}
> This is a shorter item label, and some text\footnote{What about this?}  
> that talks about it.
> The text is wrapped into a paragraph, with successive lines indented.
> \stopdescr
>
> \startdescr{This\footnote{More footnotes} term contains\footnote{Another  
> again} a
> footnote}
> This is a shorter item label, and some text that talks about it.
> The text is wrapped into a paragraph, with successive lines indented.
> \stopdescr
>
> Here is a footnote\footnote{After the descriptions}.
>
> \stoptext
>
> Regards,
> BG
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
>   


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[nico]

On Sat, 06 May 2006 09:51:38 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

> nico wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> When some footnotes are put in description terms, their number appears  
>> in
>> the terms but their text don't appear at the bottom of the page. Is it a
>> known limitation?
>>
> of boxed stuff, indeed, so we need to postpone and flush ....

Thanks, it works fine.

But as a side effect (not introduced by the patch) it seems that putting  
footnotes in a term sets a fixed width to this term: in the example the  
term wraps, even if I set width=broad in the description definition. If  
the term does not contain a footnote, it is not wrapped.

Regards,
BG

Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[Hans Hagen]

nico wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 09:51:38 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>   
>> nico wrote:
>>     
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> When some footnotes are put in description terms, their number appears  
>>> in
>>> the terms but their text don't appear at the bottom of the page. Is it a
>>> known limitation?
>>>
>>>       
>> of boxed stuff, indeed, so we need to postpone and flush ....
>>     
>
> Thanks, it works fine.
>
> But as a side effect (not introduced by the patch) it seems that putting  
> footnotes in a term sets a fixed width to this term: in the example the  
> term wraps, even if I set width=broad in the description definition. If  
> the term does not contain a footnote, it is not wrapped.
>   
send me a test file showing both 

Hans 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[nico]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 644 bytes --]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 19:52:23 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

>> Thanks, it works fine.
>>
>> But as a side effect (not introduced by the patch) it seems that putting
>> footnotes in a term sets a fixed width to this term: in the example the
>> term wraps, even if I set width=broad in the description definition. If
>> the term does not contain a footnote, it is not wrapped.
>>
> send me a test file showing both

Here it is. The first and third description terms containing footnotes are  
wrapped. The second term does not contain footnote and is not wrapped  
(it's the file committed in contexttest).

Regards,
BG

[-- Attachment #2: test-002.tex --]
[-- Type: application/x-tex, Size: 1200 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 139 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[Hans Hagen]

nico wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 19:52:23 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks, it works fine.
>>>
>>> But as a side effect (not introduced by the patch) it seems that 
>>> putting
>>> footnotes in a term sets a fixed width to this term: in the example the
>>> term wraps, even if I set width=broad in the description definition. If
>>> the term does not contain a footnote, it is not wrapped.
>>>
>> send me a test file showing both
>
> Here it is. The first and third description terms containing footnotes 
> are wrapped. The second term does not contain footnote and is not 
> wrapped (it's the file committed in contexttest).

it took me quitea while to find out that it's in the the description 
preroll which meant that the calculated width was too small and 
therefore the real thing wrapped

\long\def\nododonote#1#2%
  {\doifnot{#1}{-}
     {\ifconditional\pagewisenotes
        \doifreferencefoundelse{\s!fnt:t:\internalfootreference}
          {\ifnum\currentrealreference>\lastnotepage\relax
             \globallet\lastnotepage\currentrealreference
             \resetnumber[\currentnote]%
           \fi}
          {}%
      \fi
      \incrementnumber[\currentnote]%
      \makesectionnumber[\currentnote]%
      \let\lastnotenumber\composedsectionnumber
      \dolastnotesymbol
      \decrementnumber[\currentnote]}}



-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[nico]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 01:28:59 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

>>> send me a test file showing both
>>
>> Here it is. The first and third description terms containing footnotes
>> are wrapped. The second term does not contain footnote and is not
>> wrapped (it's the file committed in contexttest).
>
> it took me quitea while to find out that it's in the the description
> preroll which meant that the calculated width was too small and
> therefore the real thing wrapped

Thanks much, it works fine.

Regards,
BG