custom \blfootnotes

[CaseyMiller]

I made a previous post noting some challenges with converting an article template I wrote to html that contained too many different issues to be of optimal use. I was encouraged to break my post into individual issues with minimal examples. I have done so and the minimal examples and resulting html files can be viewed on overleaf at https://www.overleaf.com/read/qxcspjwfdckp#841f14

Issues labeled with footnotes and blfootnotes illustrate that using the package authblk and a hand-coded blank footnote approach are not correctly displayed. A separate issue may exist with the creative commons licensinig information.

I hope this issue is now more clear and self-contained.

Thanks to all.

[dginev]

Thank you for the dedicated issues. The Overleaf samples are OK, but they are not as useful as an inline code comment, as with:

\documentclass{article}
% Unnumbered footnotes
\newcommand\blfootnote[1]{%
  \begingroup
  \renewcommand\thefootnote{}\footnote{#1}%
  \addtocounter{footnote}{-1}%
  \endgroup
}
\begin{document}
Testing\blfootnote{a note} here.
\end{document}

The separated out issue would have also benefited from a little less provenance information, and a little more technical reporting - LaTeXML can convert this document to HTML with a footnote, which is visible on hover with the default LaTeXML.css. Which parts of that display are inaccurate? How and why?

[CaseyMiller]

If this is how footnotes are handled, then there is not an issue with blfootnote. However, there is an issue with the display of Creative Commons licensing information that was included in the second footnote in the example. From: Deyan Ginev ***@***.***> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 3:00 PM To: brucemiller/LaTeXML ***@***.***> Cc: Miller, Cass T ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [brucemiller/LaTeXML] custom \blfootnotes (Issue #2390) You don't often get email from ***@***.******@***.***>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Thank you for the dedicated issues. The Overleaf samples are OK, but they are not as useful as an inline code comment, as with: \documentclass{article} % Unnumbered footnotes \newcommand\blfootnote[1]{% \begingroup \renewcommand\thefootnote{}\footnote{#1}% \addtocounter{footnote}{-1}% \endgroup } \begin{document} Testing\blfootnote{a note} here. \end{document} The separated out issue would have also benefited from a little less provenance information, and a little more technical reporting - LaTeXML can convert this document to HTML with a footnote, which is visible on hover with the default LaTeXML.css. Which parts of that display are inaccurate? How and why? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#2390 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABNUB5SL5AFRUWO7QBMPCO3ZQ6YC5AVCNFSM6AAAAABMK7HZC6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOBSHA2TMMRXHA>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[dginev]

@CaseyMiller I am mostly trying to establish some reporting best practices for future reference. I appreciate the time you've spent so far documenting the problems here.

The value of a minimal issue comes mostly from getting a clear idea of the tecnical problem, the source that can emit it, and hence quickly find a productive upgrade for latexml that resolves it. For problems with fidelity, it can even be beneficial to attach screenshots from both PDF and HTML renderings, to make it extra clear which details are mistaken.

So the minimal TeX snippet that produces incorrect HTML is key. Sometimes I would also ask for the exact latexml command that is used to generate it - but that isn't needed here.