I suppose this is sort of a feature discussion. Anyway, the behaviour of footnotes in quotes is a bit odd, Really it would make more intuitive sense if the footnote for a quote was contained within the quote itself. At the moment it gets visually disconnected from the quote, and tacked on after the the current post. This doesn't look or feel right.
Agreed. In fact, I did mention it before, elsewhere, but forgot to open it in its own topic later. This should be tracked and resolved.
Regarding this full quote, is it possible that Elk just check its source from its link and append it as part of the post in its own container, so that it won't be messing the reply's own footnote?
Partial quote should be edited though.
Yes I think partial quotes would be the tricky thing. I'm not sure how much trouble it would be to get this working properly with all possible combinations. I just thought it was worth mentioning in case a good solution is possible.
I tend to prefer footnotes at the end of the message, because the quote is itself part of the message.
If you are reading a book, and a piece is quoted from another book and that quote has a footnote, that footnote, AFAIK, is not added at the end of the quote, but at the end of the page.
No, the quote is part of an earlier message, See? :D
Really?
Did anyone wrote the text above in a previous message? :P
So then you'd say that that footnote should go under this post.
To me yes.
The only thing I would do is increase a bit the space between the end of the message and the beginning of the footnote.
Or just leave its number and link but do remove it from the reply's quote?
What if the quote was from an external source?
What if the quote was from the same topic, but a different page?
What if the quote lost the reference to the previous message?
What if...
The only solution would be to check each and every footnote against the whole bunch of messages in the database to see if it was used before and where. Basically impossible unless you are either google, facebook, github or some other big player.
To me yes.
The only thing I would do is increase a bit the space between the end of the message and the beginning of the footnote.
I kinda don't get this but this somehow conclude that keeping footnote link is impossible. I'm ok with it.
So, if we simply leave the footnote out with no link but just number like in reply #10 is fine with me.
Right now we have the footnotes done as named links, so clicking on the note number jumps to the footnote and the return icon in the footnote takes you back to the message. Just wondering if we should also have them shown on hover over which would allow you to read the footnote in a somewhat less obtrusive way.
I think both might be a bit bloatish. Could be done as an inline spoiler I suppose.
I think that's how MediaWiki does it.
How would that work on touchscreen? I'm just thinking that the time you're really likely to want them inline is when you're on a tiny screen, but phones don't do hover. Seems to me that if you want them inline it would make more sense for them to be click-activated. This is frankly often less bother even on desktop too, because you don't get crap popping up when you don't want it.
Not really: if you have the text appear on hover/click, you don't have to jump around in the page just to see a note.
I have always wanted to put them appear on hover, I gave it a try a couple of times, but then forgot.
MW has "everything": footnotes at the bottom of the page (for desktop and mobile), on hover for desktop, on click for mobile.
The MW way seems like overkill to me, at least for a forum. Doing them on hover or click should be easy enough (with my preference being click, obviously).
Only a popup then... you don't think people'd get confused?
Meh. People are always getting confused anyway. Why worry?
because less confusion means less work for those helping support the software.