link soup

[Mark Lawrence]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

> ................................................................ My

> estimation is that there is a maximum of "two syntaxes worth" in this

> whole footendsidenote issue and if that's the case, then footnotes,

> endnotes and literature citations could probably share one, and

> sidenotes could have the other. No ?


No. If there is to be a difference among the various types of notes,  
I would vote to put literature citations in one group, and everything  
else (explanations, digressions, jokes, etc.) in another,  
irrespective of where the notes show up in the web or printed output.  
Literature citations are different in that they are not themselves  
content, but references to content elsewhere. Explanations,  
digressions, etc. are themselves textual content.

To me, the only reason to treat the different types of notes  
differently is to mimic the common--but not universal--treatment in  
print where references are kept separate from more textual notes.  
Personally, I don't see myself as often needing the distinction  
between the two, and would prefer a single, simple syntax for notes.  
One can always insert HTML directly for more complicated situations.

--
Mark Lawrence