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