Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove NonStruct from footnote label #1481

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

u-fischer
Copy link
Member

Currently footnote labels contain a NonStruct element which was used as a helper structure to move the label to the begin of the footnote structure

image

with the new tagpdf this is no longer needed and with the change here the structure looks nice.

image

(The PR contains also a few docu changes and additions.)

Status of pull request

x Ready to merge

Checklist of required changes before merge will be approved

  • [n/a] Test file(s) added
  • Version and date string updated in changed source files
  • [n/a] Relevant \changes entries in source included
  • Relevant changes.txt updated
  • [n/a] Rollback provided (if necessary)?
  • [n/a] ltnewsX.tex (and/or latexchanges.tex) updated

Comment on lines 498 to +505
% \DescribeSocket[noprint]{tagsupport/fnmark}
%
%
% The socket is used in \cs{@footnotemark}/\cs{fnote_footnotemark:}
% and takes \cs{@makefnmark} as argument. It prints the mark in the text
% and surrounds it with a tagging structure and a link. As such it is
% not solely for tagging and so should not be used with \cs{UseTaggingSocket}
% as this would swallow the argument and loose the link support.
%
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

given the documentation the socket should not be "tagsupport/..." should it?

perhaps it should contain sockets that have the tagging stuff inside?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I think one will have to rethink that. But I would suggest to leave that for after the november release and to improve now only the label tagging.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok fine, but then I think we should clearly state at the very top that the socket names as well as the suckets are likely to change because of that

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added a comment and a Todo.

Comment on lines +515 to +516
% As it sets also the tl-var for the current structure and this is used
% in destinations it should not use as tagging socket.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto

Comment on lines +538 to +539
% This socket handles mc-chunks around the text of the footnote. As it
% takes an argument (the text) is should not be use as tagging socket either.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll stop here, because I think this is a fundamental question that needs to be resolved first

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants