How do I repeat a footnote?

[janicej]

This question was asked 3 years ago and at that time there was no way to do it although a workaround was suggested. There still seems to be no way to reuse a footnote in Flare 8. I'm producing HTML and PDF output from the same source. For the HTML, I want the pop-up to display for each occurrence, but for PDF I'd like to reuse the same footnote (same number, same text) so it doesn't repeat at the bottom of the page like this:

1 Lower specifications may be used, but with reduced performance...
2 Lower specifications may be used, but with reduced performance...
3 Lower specifications may be used, but with reduced performance...

Is there a way to do this in Flare 8?

Thanks in advance.

[Msquared]

If one of your three references to the footnote were to end up in text on the next page, what would you want to happen then? Would you still want the footnote reference to be number 1, and if so, should it reference the footnote on the previous page, or a copy on the second page? Or would you want that reference to become footnote number 2, with the text duplicated at the foot of the second page?

In this case, I'd be inclined to structure the footnotes slightly differently for the printed content, not because of a Flare limitation, but because I think the result isn't particularly tidy, although of course, feel free to disagree.

I'd leave the footnote text for the first occurrance as you give it, but for all other occurrances, instead of using the same footnote text, I'd use "See <xref to footnote 1>". So at the bottom of the page, you would have

1 Lower specifications may be used, but with reduced performance...
2 See 1.
3 See 1.

This would mean you had different print and HTML footnote content for all except the first place where the footnote was referenced from - I'm assuming you can do this with a conditional. Of course, then, you would need to be careful that your content didn't get reordered, so that the first footnote reference was no longer the first, otherwise you may have footnote 1 and 3 referencing footnote 2, for example.




i'd be inclined to recst the document content so this didn't happen, not because of a Flare limittaion uy because I don't think it;s tidy

[sdcinvan]

If one of your three references to the footnote were to end up in text on the next page, what would you want to happen then? Would you still want the footnote reference to be number 1, and if so, should it reference the footnote on the previous page, or a copy on the second page? Or would you want that reference to become footnote number 2, with the text duplicated at the foot of the second page?

In this case, I'd be inclined to structure the footnotes slightly differently for the printed content, not because of a Flare limitation, but because I think the result isn't particularly tidy, although of course, feel free to disagree.

I'd leave the footnote text for the first occurrance as you give it, but for all other occurrances, instead of using the same footnote text, I'd use "See <xref to footnote 1>". So at the bottom of the page, you would have

1 Lower specifications may be used, but with reduced performance...
2 See 1.
3 See 1.

This would mean you had different print and HTML footnote content for all except the first place where the footnote was referenced from - I'm assuming you can do this with a conditional. Of course, then, you would need to be careful that your content didn't get reordered, so that the first footnote reference was no longer the first, otherwise you may have footnote 1 and 3 referencing footnote 2, for example.

I respectfully disagree with your suggestion Marjorie. In my situation, I most often need to reuse footnotes in tables used for business legal documents. In a single table, I might need to reuse several footnotes two or three times. To use your method will waste a significant amount of space in a printed document (e.g. twelve footnotes vs four - if 4 notes were reused 3 times each). If the document was published to the web, it would be unacceptable that the pop-up message stated, "see 1."

There is another thread on this topic, here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=21033&p=110027#p110027