- From: Mostafa Hajizadeh via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:33:23 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
I reviewed some books, looking for interesting footnotes. Here’s an example of bidirectional footnotes: ![bidi-in-footnotes](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/531910/26587530/e5260a4a-4567-11e7-9a27-bb28f4e3d606.jpg) Here’s an example of multi-line bidirectional footnote: ![multiline](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/531910/26587602/047d897c-4568-11e7-9cd6-88acb40179a0.jpg) And use of superscript for footnote numbers: ![superscript-notes](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/531910/26587638/1af0ab1c-4568-11e7-96fe-39496b885e5b.jpg) Adib Soltani’s “The Manual of Book Preparation” has a very interesting section on footnotes and endnotes, including these two pages that showcase a number of examples for numbering footnotes (I added English translations in color): ![correct-numbering-1](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/531910/26588252/0a23b94e-456a-11e7-9292-27530eb91e08.jpg) ![correct-numbering-2](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/531910/26588339/4c3f46b8-456a-11e7-81b8-e896b4c60bf1.jpg) In the books that I saw, all-Latin footnotes were always written from left to right and use European numbers. I could not find a single exception. Adib Soltani’s “The Manual” even instructs so. -- GitHub Notification of comment by mostafah Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/109#issuecomment-304897446 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2017 14:33:30 UTC