FT2 wrote:
PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs,
one other wish I'll throw
in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs as
sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders
anywhere
as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the
same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3
is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different
comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in
each cite, completely.
What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref
name="doe">John
Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget
manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink
name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of
adults.<ref>According
to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to
Doe<reflink
name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
And have it render:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget
manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47% of
employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.
2 - Source: [note 1] page 97.
3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according
to
Doe [note 1] 47%
At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same
duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink name="blah"
/>, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow
something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the main
text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
So why not just use
''ibid.'' of ''op. cit.'' as appropriate?
Ec