Re: File problem....

["M.W. Poirier" poirmw@xxxxxxxx]

Mr. Holmgren:

Thank you very much for the suggestion below, but I don't think that
that is the problem. I thought of the problem with guillemets even
before I posed the question to the list late yesterday, and I inspected
the entire file. I saw nothing abnormal with the guillemets. This
morning I followed your direction in the note below, and I discover
that I have exactly 291 guillemets of both varieties. The 291 seems
low, but they balance.

This is the first stubborn problem I am encountering with XY4. It is
almost as if the footnote in question is picking up a code, or contains
within it a code, that is causing it to behave abnormally. I say this
because if I delete the footnote, all the other notes behave normally,
and the file is problem free. And yet, when I inspect the offending
footnote in Expanded mode, there is nothing about the note that is
strange. When I copy the text of the note to the clipboard, and then
delete the note, and reinsert it, I am back to square one. If it isn't
the note itself, could it be the relationship between it and the pre-
vious note, ...for I've noticed that it insists on having the same note
number as the immediately preceding note, which seems to mean that it
is not recognizing the previous note.

Again, thank you for your suggestion below.

M.W. Poirier

==========================================================================
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Robert Holmgren wrote:

> ** Reply to message from "M.W. Poirier"  on Fri, 26
> Jul 2002 21:13:51 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
> > When I call up the
> > file in DRAFT view, for some reason that I cannot identify, one
> > of the footnotes appears as if it were in EXPANDED view.
>
> It *sounds* like a missing guillemet. Or perhaps an extra guillemet somewhere?
> Go to TOF in eXPanded view, command "ci |<|<|" and "ci |>|>|" (where < and > and
> true or red guillemets), i.e. replace each guillemet with itself, and make sure
> that the count of changes made on the PRompt line is the identical number for
> both -- guillemets must be perfectly balanced, of course.
>
> -----------------------------
> Robert Holmgren
> holmgren@xxxxxxxx
> -----------------------------
>
>