Cross reference vs Footnote markers Question

Question

I’m a bit confused why USFM defines separate footnote and cross reference containers. Is it simply so that they can be tracked separately and put in different locations when printing?

In the project I’m currently working on, footnotes and x-refs all go in the same location (at the bottom of the page) but have different markers. I’m wondering if there is anything fundamentally wrong with using:
\f ‡ \xt MAT 1:1\f*
instead of
\x + \xt MAT 1:1\x*

Like I said above, the only reason I can think of using \x...\x* markers is if the x-ref ends up in a different location, like in a side margin instead of at the bottom of the page. Are there other reasons I’m not thinking of?

Since this is technically a question about USFM and not Paratext, is there a better forum to ask this sort of question?

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

Answer 1

In the “old” days we used to mark both types of text as footnotes, but with the advent of newer technologies the decision was made to separate out the two types. As you mention sometimes these are put in different places.
Cross references by default are verified as references - that is one reason for separating them out. Another reason for separating them out is that in many projects there can be thousands of cross references and only relatively few “true” footnotes. If I want to check the footnotes I need to have them identified differently from the cross references.
For Print typesetting is is fairly easy to change \x…\x* to \f…\f* so that both types come out printed the same way. However, if that is done with a scripture app, the cross-reference linking gets lost so it is better to have it marked as a \x…\x*

It is always easier to change cross references to footnotes at print time. It is very difficult to change footnotes that are really cross references back to \x…\x*

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

Comments

I thought it was the \xt marker that triggers the reference verification, not the \x marker. Note that in my footnote example I used \xt.
\f ‡ \xt MAT 1:1\f*

So it’s not the cross reference text I’m wondering about–we certainly want that to hot link in apps–but it’s the container markers that I’m wondering about.

The reason I’m considering going back and changing all x-refs to footnotes is that sometimes we have ‘pure’ x-refs but other times we have a footnote that contains an x-ref. So currently we would have something like
\x + \xt MAT 1:1\x*
but
\f + \ft blah blah blah. See also \xt MAT 1:1\f*
But it confuses our team–and frankly sometimes me–why we use \x in some places and \f in others.

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

mnjames:

I thought it was the \xt marker that triggers the reference verification, not the \x marker.

That is correct inside Paratext for linking purposes, but what @anon848905 is saying is that other technologies like the Scripture App Builder (or other apps that use the finished text), may look at the \f versus \x and treat them differently since USFM defines them differently.

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

So would SAB or some other program theoretically not hotlink the reference in the following?
\f + \ft blah blah blah. See also \xt MAT 1:1\f*

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

There is nothing wrong with your suggestion of using putting an \xt …\xt* inside \f + …\f*``

We do this as a standard for many of our publications though we prefer this formatting:

\f + \fr 1:1 \ft See also: \xt … \xt*.\f*

With the “See also” part being in the language, of course.

As you say, it is easier for the translators to understand and deal with one system and it is also easier for the readers.

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

\xt … is used to hotlink references. Your example is an appropriate use of the \xt in a footnote.

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

Shegnada:

\f + \fr 1:1 \ft See also: \xt … \xt*.\f*

Shegnada, I’m curious why you close the reference using the \xt* marker since the final punctuation can easily be set to be ignored by PT. Is it because other programs can’t deal with it? Should we try to pass all the PT reference tests without adding extra information into “Extra Material” or “Punctuation” areas of the Scripture Reference Settings?

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

Yes, that is a good point. You can set PT to ignore the final punctuation and then omit the \xt*. Our standard was set when that was not possible or it didn’t work properly. But also, when fixing projects that have not included the \xt … \xt* for references in footnotes or glossaries or missed them here and there, it is easily fixed by the team by selecting the reference(s) and typing “\xt “. Paratext automatically then includes the \xt* on the end. We do like to have it be as standard as possible so that it can easily handled later with regex’s.

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

\f + \fr 1:1 \ft See also: \xt … \xt*.\f*

Is there a best practice for putting final punctuation before or after \xt*? Our practice has been to put it before. Will that cause problems with hotlinking?

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

I don’t know about best practice… and would love for someone to write a textbook on best usage of USFM markers.

But I can testify that if you’ve defined your scripture reference format correctly (with final punctuation), it doesn’t matter if the final punctuation is inside or outside. I think leaving it ‘inside’ would best be used when you’re not even using the closing markers, as in:
\f + \fr 1:1 \ft See also: \xt ... .\f*
If you are going to use the \xt* markers (and once again, whether to use it or not is open for debate), I’d personally recommend having the punctuation outside since it makes the actual reference slightly easier to parse.

Ancienne publication - affichée dans sa langue d'origine

---

I'm about to give a presentation at an upcoming translators worshop on this topic (Cross-refs and Footnotes) and, even after reading this thread, am still somewhat unsure what is preferable for 'hybrid' notes to work both in print publications and electronic apps.
I can see the above

\f + \fr 1:1 \ft See also: \xt ... .\f*

will work, but given it is essentially a cross-ref would

\x + \xt 1:1 \xta See also: \xt ... .\x*

not be better? In fact, if "See also" is defind as supplementary material in the project's Scripture Reference Settings you don't even need the \xta.

But my confusion is greater when it comes to more complex hybrids such as a note/cross-reference on 'Bethlehem' in Mt. 2.1. Which is better (to ensure it gets correctly into both print and electronic versions)?

\f + \fr 2.1 \ft According to \+xt 1 Sam 16.1\+xt* \fq Bethlehem \ft is David's home town.\f*

or

\x - \xo 2.1 \xq Bethlehem \xta : according to \xt 1 Sam 16.1\xta Bethlehem is David's home town.\x*