As the example came through in my mail reader--in a different, proportionally spaced font--the effect of .ll in the examples was hard to figure out. Which of the two line lengths in the new case is actually operative? Why are the inch lengths in the old and new examples so different? The new example is ticklish, since it depends on the peculiar AI that identifies sentence endings. Suppose citation 1 were longer (e.g. it includded the title of the article) and occupied two input lines, with the first happening to end with "Soc."
I prefer the old example because it's clean to read, isn't mixed up with AI, and incidentally illustrates a nontrivial use for .nop. The new example is too full of distractions. (One distraction could well be dropped from the old example: the unbreakable space. The huge extra space could have an ugly effect if broken in justified text.) Doug > The example itself originally read: > > .ll 4.5i > 1.\ This is the first footnote.\c > .ss 48 > .nop > .ss 12 > 2.\ This is the second footnote. > > RESULT: > > 1. This is the first footnote. 2. This > is the second footnote. > > The new version of this example is: > > .ie n .ll 50n > .el .ll 2.75i > .ss 12 48 > 1. J. Fict. Ch. Soc. 6 (2020), 3\[en]14. > 2. Better known for other work. > > RESULT: > > 1. J. Fict. Ch. Soc. 6 (2020), 3-14. 2. Better > known for other work. G. Branden Robinson 6:50 AM (11 hours ago) Reply to me [private reply] Hi Doug, Your response to the .ss topic went to the TUHS list, not the groff list where the subject originated. I responded to the groff list. FYI and warmest regards, Branden Attachments area
