You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It turned out that loading bigfoot sometimes leads to wrong placement of the footnotes (in the wrong page).
An attempt should be made to create a MWE and send it to the bigfoot maintainer.
If this strategy fails, I think we can revert to the old manyfoot, removing also the perpage package. The catch is that you can't nest footnotes anymore. This, however, can be done this way:
Here we have\footnote{Second\footnotemarkB}\footnotetextB{This is nested} a footnote and a secondary\footnoteB{sec-second}
I.e., splitting mark and text (which needs to be placed outside of the footnote).
This in turn fails (partially) if you have multiple secondary footnotes in a single note, which will lead to a duplicate number.
If we maintain our own counter, it could work, though:
Here we have\footnote{Second\footnotemarkB[1]\footnotemarkB[2]}\footnotetextB[1]{This is nested}\footnotetextB[2]{This is nested again} a footnote and a secondary\footnoteB[3]{sec-second}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It turned out that loading bigfoot sometimes leads to wrong placement
of the footnotes (in the wrong page).
With this change the ability to use manyfoot instead is given back to
the template, which can be changed by the archive maintainer.
Address #27
It turned out that loading
bigfoot
sometimes leads to wrong placement of the footnotes (in the wrong page).An attempt should be made to create a MWE and send it to the
bigfoot
maintainer.If this strategy fails, I think we can revert to the old
manyfoot
, removing also theperpage
package. The catch is that you can't nest footnotes anymore. This, however, can be done this way:I.e., splitting mark and text (which needs to be placed outside of the footnote).
This in turn fails (partially) if you have multiple secondary footnotes in a single note, which will lead to a duplicate number.
If we maintain our own counter, it could work, though:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: