Re: FOOTNOTE element

Joe English (jenglish@crl.com)
Thu, 09 Mar 1995 11:42:43 -0800


Message-Id: <199503091942.AA01457@mail.crl.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www10.w3.org>
Subject: Re: FOOTNOTE element 
In-Reply-To: <MICHAELJ.950309095219@relay.relay.com> 
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 11:42:43 -0800
From: Joe English <jenglish@crl.com>


michaelj@relay.relay.com (Michael Johnson) wrote:

> Joe English writes:
> >In the spirit of keeping HTML simple,
> >I'd vote for dropping footnote support altogether.
> 
> No, no.. I don't want to see footnote support go away. They are valuable as
> a mechanism for allowing spot annotation within a document. With footnotes,
> the author does not have to maintain lots of little documents for footnotes,
> and when the reader wants to read a footnote, the browser doesn't have to go
> out and fetch a URL.
> 
> Besides, I've already gone to the trouble of implementing popup footnotes in
> my browser and I do *NOT* want to rip that code out, thank you very much.

Ah; I was (mis)interpreting "footnote" in the LaTeX
sense of "text that gets moved to the bottom of the 
page with cross-reference indicators added".  I don't
think HTML should have this any more than it should
have a <TABLEOFCONTENTS> element.

Popups are a different story; these can't be expressed
with existing markup, and probably do deserve their own 
element instead of overloading <NOTE>.


--jenglish@crl.com

(Hmm... sure enough, the current spec says "A footnote 
is typically rendered as a pop-up note."  I should know
better by now to always check the docs instead of relying on 
faulty memory.)