Note on Suggestion 869 / 871

Date: [unknown] [unknown]
Location: [unknown]
Surnames/tags: data_doctors suggestion_869 suggestion_871

869 = two named ref tags with the same name and non-empty content.

List: (April 21st)

The processing of named refs goes something like this:

1 - any number of named refs with the same name will produce only one footnote

2 - at least one (of the named refs with the same name) should have non-empty content. Doesn't matter which

3 - the first one with non-empty content determines the displayed footnote

4 - if any others have non-empty content, this is ignored, as if <ref name="blah">content</blah> were read as <ref name="blah" />.

So multiple footnotes with the same name are collapsed into one.

This is all fine so long as you don't accidentally use the same ref name for two footnotes that are supposed to be different.

An apparent exception is created if the ref name is wrapped in smart quotes (unsupported):

(See edit mode)

Using typewriter double quotes - single footnote

Some text ^[1]

More text ^[1]

Using typewriter single quotes - single footnote

Some text ^[2]

More text ^[2]

Using no quotes - single footnote

Some text ^[3]

More text ^[3]

Using smart quotes - two footnotes - This is the problem using Suggestion 871

Some text ^[4]

More text ^[4]

Actually the effect of the smart quotes is just that the name parameter isn't recognized at all, so <ref name=“test”> is treated as if it were just <ref>.

__________

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} This version uses straight quotes (1)
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} This version uses single quotes (1)
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} This version uses no quotes (1)
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} This version uses smart quotes