How about we just map it directly to the
EPUB semantics? Then in EPUB readers it will display as a (popup, in-place)
footnote, and in HTML browsers we can get the same with appropriate
use of CSS/JS.
Option 1: phrase-level inline footnotes
If we can limit the contents of a footnote
to phrase-level content (ie no p, ul, etc.) then we can have <fn>
available inside <p> as a phrase-level element, without getting into
nasty mixed-content situations that are potentially tough for editors to
handle.
Assuming we can keep it as phrase-level,
it would look something like this:
XDITA:
<p>Here's my special<fn>Not
that special</fn> idea</p>
HTML5:
<p>Here's my special<a epub:type="noteref"
href="" epub:type="footnote"
id="n1">Not that special</aside> idea</p>
Pro: footnote numbers are auto-generated
and maintained, at least in the XML model
Con: hard limits on footnote size may
seem arbitrary especially in non-XML contexts where it's not validated
by schema
Option 2: block-level referenced
footnotes
If we want to allow block content in
a footnote (eg multiple paras) then I think we'd have to move to the referenced
footnote model from DITA - effectively we'd set <fn> as block-level
only, require an id, and then say that it shows up only when an xref with
type="fn" references that id (or we create a specialized xref
- eg fnref).
So block-level footnote would have to
look something like this:
XDITA:
<p>Here's my special<xref type="fn"
href="" idea</p>
<fn id="n1"><p>Not
that special</p></fn>
HTML5:
<p>Here's my special<a epub:type="noteref"
href="" idea</p>
<aside epub:type="footnote"
id="n1"><p>Not that special</p></aside>
Pro: more flexible footnote authoring,
closer match between XDITA and HDITA capabilities
Con: footnote numbering is hardcoded
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
From:
Don Day <>
To:
Date:
04/19/2016 09:15 AM
Subject:
Re: [dita-lightweight-dita]
More on footnotes in HTML5
Sent by:
<>
HTML's title attribute has a very footnote-ish interaction
indeed for desktop views (and assuming you can make the item recognizable
as being a progressive disclosure by applying color or typography), but
the hover behavior does not exist for touch interactions, and I'm not sure
what the accessibility is of hover items in a screen reader. These concerns
kind of push me toward markup that has more touchable behaviors with the
ability to link elsewhere (and then back) or use hide/reveal-in-place rather
than produce hover or pop-over content. Am I constraining myself too much?
--
Don
On 4/19/2016 5:03 AM, Rahel Anne Bailie wrote:
Another thought is that we live with a lot of conventions
left over from print. For example, a glossary in print made sense, but
online you can have in situ hover-overs. (This is one thing that drives
me crazy in ebooks, where the author uses some local slang and when I get
to the end of the book, there is a glossary that I no longer need.)
Footnotes definitely have a place in print and have an
equivalent online, though the implementation would be different. For example,
a footnote on an endless scroll page wouldn't make sense. So where does
that go, and does it then cease to be a footnote, per se?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Don Day <>
wrote:
Footnotes may not be easily solved for equivalence across
HTML and Markdown and still return to DITA. The data models (indeed the
intent behind the designs) is all different.
Markdown has a close proxy to footnotes in its "reference
links", but HTML has no architected equivalent--rather than providing
for a semantic structure with footnote-like behavior, HTML5 has you inserting
markup that supports the behavior, but you cannot easily decompose it back
into the intent of a reference link when converting into DITA. One Markdown
extension suggests adding a caret into the reference (i.e., [^1] to imply
a proper footnote, meaning that extended content can be ascribed to it
(see http://rephrase.net/box/word/footnotes/syntax/).
But since HTML has no way to be similarly extended, we are limited to whatever
processing and display semantic are available.
One user has proposed a footnote design for a future HTML5,
but don't hold your breath. It would be a properly architected structure
for deferred content, but good ideas take time to win hearts, if ever.
This proposal article (see http://davidmacd.com/blog/html51-footnotes.html)
actually explains the ePub solution well, and it is compelling to me for
now--I'm inclined to make use of <aside> for any sort of deferable
content in HDITA structures (perhaps for <note> as well, if you can
accept that it is deferable (or at least can be floated outside of the
normal galley flow).
Meanwhile, although the details/summary markup does provide
an architected design that represents content that can be deferred from
the main view, it is more truthfully a visibility toggle, not a reference
to a block of text. This is soo close, but I understand perfectly why ePub
eschews its use as a footnote. This markup would better serve the role
of a FAQ in which the question is the <details> and the answer is
the <summary> content, with expanding behavior in the display.
Try pasting this content into a small HTML file and drop
it onto a browser to see how HTML5 summary/details works.
---------------------------------
<p>The details element in HTML5 works best as an
interaction that toggles visibility on and off. Normally this is done with
spans and divs and a tiny bit of _javascript_ for the interaction. Note how
content pushes down as summary content is toggled into view:</p>
<details>
<summary>Q: Why are markup architectures so difficult?</summary>
<p>A: Humans design solutions for different reasons.</p>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Q: Why do we care about what we do?</summary>
<p>A: Because we like to prevail over the limitations handed
to us.</p>
</details>
<p>Note that this markup provides default behavior in the browser;
no _javascript_ is needed. The downside is that the default presentation
is ugly and not all browsers provide CSS hooks for styling yet.</p>
------------------------------------------
So although it is useful to see how summary/details works,
I consider it to be a UI gadget rather than a useful container for content.
The nested containers are good, but their behavior precludes the intent
of a footnote, in my opinion. I'd save this markup for FAQs and for progressive
disclosure use cases.
I say let's see why the ePub solution is not better, and whether we can
shoehorn <aside> as footnote into Markdown semantics like the reference
link. I think this comes closest to lining up with DITA fn intent (especially
with the caret extension).
I could be convinced that it is a useful design point to allow Lightweight
DITA to be only as rich as there exist fully equivalent markup solutions
across all versions (and common Markdown at that--extensions become liabilities
outside the few environments that support them). 1 Designating
and maintaining the record copy out of 3 near equivalents is a recipe for
Version Control Induced Insanity.
--
Don
1 Of course, there is always "DITA used lightly" that I
get a lot of present use out of. ;-)
On 4/18/2016 10:52 AM, Michael Priestley wrote:
Interesting discussion here, on how
it's being done in EPUB and why:
http://idpf.org/forum/topic-885
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
--
Don
R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday Twitter:
@donrday
About.me: Don
R. Day Skype:
don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in
knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
--
Rahel Anne Bailie, Content
Strategy & Ecosystems / Content Management & Design
Content strategies for business impact
Mobile: +44 (0) 7869 643 685 / skype: rahelab
Co-producer: Content
Strategy Workshops
Co-editor: The
Language of Content Strategy
Co-author: Content
Strategy: Connecting the dots between business, brand, and benefits
--
Don
R. Day
Founding Chair, OASIS
DITA Technical Committee
LinkedIn: donrday Twitter:
@donrday
About.me: Don
R. Day Skype: don.r.day
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
