I just noticed this is already addressed in 4.1. Attached is a patch in case someone needs it for 4.0.3.
tklawsuc → created an issue.
My thoughts are:
- remove a/b where the footnote value and text are the same...like the 1a1b example. So I would just show "1" since the two annotations are referencing the same footnote (1).
- do the separation you started here where values are the same (e.g. the 5 in your sample) but the text is different. Although it might not be ideal where the numbers are both "5" in the body and 5a and 5b in summary, it will at least show the footnote and the user can then device to change the values if applicable.
Makes sense to me. I like the change you made for the 5a and 5b option to at least show the footnotes where values get duplicated. I would still ask you consider my suggestion about not adding letters for cases where the footnotes are the same and just show the number. Thanks for entertaining my ideas.
I think you are on the right track. Here is my perspective on the duplicate text/values. Let's say you use the auto numbering and add the same footnotes in different places. The link in the body will be "1" for each footnote. But the summary has 1a1b which to me is confusing. I would just expect to have "1" in the summary since the body has "1" for each instance. Similarly for the different content (your example with 5a and 5b), I would add the letter to the body so you can visually see 5a and 5b without having to figure out if the #5 you are looking at in the content area is the a or b reference.
On another note, I also noticed you can't user some punctuations (*, !, #, ^) for the value field which is not clear. You can see it in the editor but when you view the page it reverts to auto-numbering. So the user won't know until they view the content and check for the footnotes. Probably not a deal breaker but there should be something to warn the user. You can however use html entities like †and ‡
Are you referring to the filters? I made sure that footnotes is at the top of the list. I also tried this with just the footnotes filter enabled and get the same.
My thought with the options is to allow the user to determine how to handle duplicate values. This would also apply to conflict with manual value and automated numbering. Maybe to keep things simple, you remove that feature all together and treat each entry as it's own in an indexed array and any duplicates will be on the user to resolve. This would be similar to the "do nothing" option I proposed above.
tklawsuc → created an issue.
One way around the ckeditor p tag is to add a custom settings handler and override the limit message there:
limit_user_message: '[none]'
Although this is an old post, I came across it having the same question. Since I couldn't find the answer, I did a trial with both options. "Retroactive" will run through all the nodes and update the paths right after saving the content type. "Active updating" will only update the path when the node is saved. So use retroactive if you want to update all paths immediately. Otherwise use "Active updating" for a more manual process where you have to update/save each node.