Endnotes / footnotes questions in DOCX as source

[jindroush]

I played with endnotes and footnotes in DOCX recently and noticed few things.

1) Would it be possible to split somehow footnotes and endnotes? Currently they're "rendered" by docx input plugin in one huge pile. Is there any mechanism which would allow the separation? They're usually semantically different. But I'm still unsure how to present the difference, when both are assigned numbers on input.

2) Complicated documents could have more than one linked to one word. Currently I've seen two footnotes and one endnote at the end of line, having assinged numbers 11, 12 & 13 and displayed as 111213. Could these be separated somehow?

I'm more or less asking, not requesting as this seems to be quite a corner case.

[kovidgoyal]

1) split them how? I suppose one could put some kind of divider between them, but what would that really achieve?

2) Probably possible, opena bug report for it and attach a sample document showing the issue.

[jindroush]

1) I know. I know. All the solutions I can think of are really clumsy.

2) Filed as #2089433.

[quinta@ebf.cz]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

1) split them how?

Calibre processes both footnotes and endnotes as one type of "notes". Conversion output every time contains just one list for both types of notes (in order of their appearance in document).
IMO the meaning of request is to process footnotes and endnotes separatelly. Each type of notes with its own block of note texts, and (mayby) with its own numbering method.

Example: docx with footnotes and endnotes, and its actual Calibre conversion:



Probably desired conversion output (actually conversion output of Writer2xhtml):

[kovidgoyal]

Putting them in their own block is meaningless, thats the separator option I mentioned above. As for using different numbers, what would that achieve?

[quinta@ebf.cz]

Endnotes are used in one document with footnotes (usually) for some good reason. One note type is used for different purpose than the other. (As jindroush said: "They're usually semantically different.") This is why information of note type should be preserved. (Despite they are in epub technically implemented in exactly same way...)

Preserved in some way. As reasonable solution seem to be different numbering and/or (better "and" then "or" ) separated blocks of texts for each note type. Footnotes in one list, endnotes in another.

[kovidgoyal]

Again, I dont see what separating them would achieve, every note is one a separate page already. Nor what using a different numbering scheme would achieve. If for some reason some books really really wants to tell its readers this link is an endnote not a footnote when those two are the same thing in an ebook, it can format endnotes differently, conversion preserves formatting.

[quinta@ebf.cz]

Somebody might want to have footnotes and endnotes in separate lists. Because they are simply two different things, two different tools (they are presented separately in the source document...). Footnotes and endnotes are often written for different purposes, and by different authors.

Somebody might also want to read the endnotes separately, one after the other... And that doesn't work very well when they are mixed with footnotes.

Yes, notes are exported to a separate page by Calibre, by default. This separation is not what I am talking about. (By the way, this default behavior of the conversion can be changed by setting --docx-no-pagebreaks-between-notes, in which case the notes are placed on one page. Such an output is much more readable.)

By "separation" I meant separating footnotes from endnotes. Into two separate lists. The actual output of the conversion is one list, including both footnotes and endnotes. Example:

Notes:
Footnote 1
Endnote 1
Footnote 2
Endnote 2

The change I'm talking about is splitting footnotes and endnotes into two separate lists:

Footnotes:
Footnote 1
Footnote 2

Endnotes:
Endnote 1
Endnote 2

And as for numbering: When you're reading a document with notes, you might want to know what kind of note you're seeing. Before you click on a link. This requires footnotes to be numbered differently from endnotes.

And yes, the type of note could perhaps be distinguished just by its text. I don't know exactly how - for example, you could start each endnote with "ENDNOTE {number}: ...". Or use a different format... Or something. That wouldn't be the usual way to distinguish between footnotes and endnotes. But then you'd have to open each note to find out what kind it is. (Besides, you can easily make such an adjustment only in the source document. However, you can't always work with the source document. Sometimes only the result of the conversion is available...)

In a paper book, footnotes and endnotes are commonly distinguished in two ways: 1/ by location (but this difference is not usually transferred to the ebook), and 2/ by the numbering method. Since the difference in numbering is the only remaining way of distinction, it should be used.

Sometimes people make additional adjustments to the output of conversions just to distinguish between footnotes and endnotes. It's quite complicated, because the difference between the types of notes is consistently removed by the conversion... Therefore, at least a possible hidden distinction of the type of notes in html would be somewhat useful, too. For example current note reference markup can appear as:

<a id="back_note_1" href="index_split_001.html#note_1" title="1" class="noteref" role="doc-noteref">1</a>

The difference could appear in the value of id, or style, or rel: where "footnote" (or "endnote") would be given instead of "note"... I don't know if such solution would mean any simplification for you.

Well. Footnotes are different thing than endnotes, so they should be treated differently.