Re: Footnotes/Endnotes formatting

["Patricia M. Godfrey" priscamg@xxxxxxxx]

Michael Norman wrote:
Just to clarify:  does NOT insert a tab in the
footnote. The TS= there simply defines the value of the tab you put in
the footnote either when you create it or as Jon Inggs says, when you
convert all FN1s to FN1{period}{tab}s with a routine.
True, and I knew that but did not express it well. But, as I
posted earlier today, you don't need to do a CI routine to get
that period and tab in there. (In general, I dislike leaving
things to be done by CI or CV at the very end, though that is
often when they must be done. Partly because when I'm writing,
there is no very end; I'm always tweaking. And partly because
there often isn't time, and it doesn't get done.)
Thanks for the cite. I'll start reading.
Yes, well, I mistyped that. It's 4-112 in the Command Reference
Guide, not the Customization Guide. Mea culpa.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Leave the formatting to the publisher?
You set the page up the way you want it to look, then the publisher
tweaks it.
In general and in theory, no. The publisher decides how the page
should look. There have always been gray areas there: if the
subject is a highly specialized one and the publisher hasn't dome
much work in that field, he may need to be told, very firmly,
what is and is not done. (E.g., I was once copy editing a book on
herbs and wildflowers, and pointed out, early in the process,
that names of taxa higher than genus are NOT italicized. The
editor never forgave me for showing up her ignorance.)
But nowadays it's worse: a lot of the people in publishing act as
if they had never looked at a piece of typeset work in their
lives. They are completely unaware of certain long-established
typesetting conventions (e.g., you don't underline in
type--because in the days of lead type you couldn't; underlining
was a typewriter substitute for itals). They use solid caps with
abandon. They put in far too many fonts. Or--even worse--they
don't understand that headings must immediately, by their
typography, signal to the reader their relative position in the
hierarchy of document structure. (That same project had two
headings in the same font, size, and weight: Monocots was one,
The Lily Family was the other. The second is a subset of the
first, and HAS to be in a smaller or lighter typeface--or u&lc,
with "Monocots" solid cap or cap and sc, if necessary. When I
pointed this out, the editor informed me, "There are only two
levels of heading in the book." Well, of course, someone should
have told the authors that so they wouldn't try to use three.)
So sometimes authors, IF they are themselves knowledgeable about
type and the publishing process, may have to take a hand in
things that in a well-ordered culture they should be able to
leave to the experts.

Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a rant, but it rankles.

--
Patricia M. Godfrey
priscamg@xxxxxxxx