[Bug 159137] Add "previous/next note" functionality to cross-references (conditional mix of "referenced text" and "above/below")

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159137

--- Comment #3 from William Friedman <will.friedman at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2)
> (In reply to William Friedman from comment #0)
> > ...if the cross-referenced note is adjacent to the current note,
> > one writes "see previous/next note"...
> Do you have a reference for this, something like CMAS or APA?

In the style guides I consulted (CMOS, MLA, APA, OSCOLA), the broader issue of
internal cross-references is not addressed explicitly, only references to other
works mentioned in the immediately preceding footnote (see CMOS 17, 14.34). The
use of "see next/previous note" is quite common in academic writing; go to
scholar.google.com and search for "see next note" (5K hits) and "see previous
note" (9K hits).

In response to Stephane's suggestion, however, I need to stress that I'm not
talking only about cross-referencing previous references to other works, but to
*internal cross-referencing*. E.g. (in the text below, <> refers to what is
shaded as the field reference and [] describes what the reference points to).

fn1: I am discussing issue X.
fn2: I am discussing issue Y; for a discussion of issue X, see <the previous
note> [xref to fn1]. I will address issue Z in <the next note> [xref to fn3].
fn3: I am discussing issue Z. For a discussion of issue X, see <n. 1> [xref to
fn1]; for a discussion of issue Y, see <the previous note> [xref to fn2].

Were this to be implemented, the wording would need to be customizable (so that
it could be used for internal cross-referencing as described, or for ibid. or
whatever).

> Before/after a strong relative references, same as Ibid., and moving text
> around would have to turn this into into absolute and variable references.
> It's not like "before" which is always true. For example, if the page break
> occurs after some editing between the two items, would "previous" become a
> hard reference?

I don't understand what you mean here. My request is specifically for
referencing one footnote/endnote from another footnote/endnote, so page breaks
wouldn't be relevant. It would have no relevance in the body of the text, just
like "above/below" is, AFAICT, meaningless in the body of the text now, even
though I can insert it.

I also don't understand what you mean when you write that "it's not like
'before' which is always true." (Do you mean "above"/"below" when you write
'before'?) Isn't that also by definition a relative reference?

> I think it's better to manually type these words as they are niche use
> cases.

To understand the problem, consider my example above. Let's say that I put fn2
before fn1. Properly updated, it would read as follows:

fn1: I am discussing issue Y; for a discussion of issue X, see <the next note>
[xref to fn2]. I will address issue Z in <n. 3> [xref to fn3].
fn2: I am discussing issue X.
fn3: I am discussing issue Z. For a discussion of issue X, see <the previous
note> [xref to fn2]; for a discussion of issue Y, see <n. 1> [xref to fn1].

As currently constituted, all of this would need to be manually updated. Repeat
over thousands of footnotes and changes of this nature, and you see the
problem.

I guess one question is how to define "niche." Are 14K hits on Google Scholar
niche use cases?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.