Re: Footnotes documentation

[James]

George,

On 10 December 2011 17:45, George_ <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> pkx166h-2 wrote:
>>
>> George,
>>
>> On 30 November 2011 22:16, George Xu <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, sorry. 2.14.2. I guess that explains why \auto-footnote doesn't
>>> work, but it doesn't help much...
...
> I agree, the 2.15 docs seem to have it documented much better. Just
> wondering, though, is there a way to get a body \markup footnote to look
> like a top-level markup footnote?
>
> Also, if I may propose a small change to the docs, I think it should
> explicitly say that body markups are treated as grobs. I know that it says
> that top-level markups are treated differently, but I think it should point
> out a bit clearer how other markups are handled, especially when it says:
>
> "Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use
> \autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs,
> dynamics including \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for
> annotating chorded notes."
>
> I don't feel that it's as clear as it could be at the moment, since the only
> body markup that is footnoted is the rit. at the end of the 3rd example on
> the page. So if it was changed to something like:
>
> "Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use
> \autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs,
> dynamics, and \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for
> annotating chorded notes."
>
> I feel it would be much clearer. Change in bold.

I've done this as you suggested. Thanks for the input.

It should appear in the next dev release.

-- 
--

James