This is a style question and I hope this is a reasonable place to ask
it. If not, I apologize.

Assume I'm writing in whatever you would consider vanilla LaTeX using
default fonts. Which of the following two equally ugly forms is
preferred and why? I'm asking why so I can work out similar cases on my own.

1. blah blah;\footnote{more text} more blah

2. blah blah\footnote(more text}; more blah

Thanks in advance for any pointers.
--
Jeff Barnett

In article <tepi4i$23lm9$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
writes:

> This is a style question and I hope this is a reasonable place to ask
> it. If not, I apologize.
>
> Assume I'm writing in whatever you would consider vanilla LaTeX using
> default fonts. Which of the following two equally ugly forms is
> preferred and why? I'm asking why so I can work out similar cases on my own.
>
> 1. blah blah;\footnote{more text} more blah
>
> 2. blah blah\footnote(more text}; more blah

I think that the question applies in general for the combination of
footnotes and punctuation, not just for semicolons. My rule of thumb:
if the footnote refers to the whole phrase, then after the punctuation;
if not, then after the word.

Jeff Barnett wrote:
> 1. blah blah;\footnote{more text} more blah
> 2. blah blah\footnote(more text}; more blah

The way I use and frequently see it inpublications is:

1) if the footnote concerns the complete last sentence, phrase or
paragraph.
2) if the footnote is about the word or group of words it comes after.

And those were the last words of the king\footnote{A king is bit like a
prime minister but with more power.}.\footnote{Royal words and
utterances are more comprehensively covered in chapter~5.}

And yes, cluttering two footnoes in this way is even more ugly.

--
/¯\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
\ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Straße 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
 X in | D-50829 Köln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de
/ \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --