# Ticket #10481 (closed defect: invalid)

Opened 7 months ago

## No Footnotes at all in Trac 1.0

Reported by: Assigned to: info@petamem.com rjollos high FootNoteMacro major 1.0

### Description

FootNoteMacro 1.03-r11767 is installed and enabled in Trac 1.0

The macro does generate a superscript index as well as the ALT text and Hyperlink, but there is no footnote at the bottom of the page.

we have<sup class="footnote"><a cannotgivehrefhere="#FootNote1" id="FootNoteRef1" title="We have of course older backups too, but these ...">1</a></sup>


## Change History

### 10/14/12 11:16:15 changed by anonymous

the cannotgivehref here is normally of course href, I just wanted to avoid rejection and an internal server error of trac-hacks...

### 10/19/12 10:31:25 changed by rjollos

• status changed from new to assigned.
• priority changed from normal to high.

### 10/20/12 09:39:05 changed by rjollos

Did you place [[FootNote]] at the bottom of the page? It is working fine for me when testing out this evening with Trac 1.1.1dev. If you still have no luck, please try out the example at FootNoteMacro#Example.

### 10/20/12 09:47:46 changed by rjollos

(In [12232]) Refs #10481:

• Changed to more common no-conflict mode jQuery(document).ready(function(){... syntax, replacing \$(function(){...

### (follow-up: ↓ 7 ) 10/20/12 10:27:53 changed by PetaMem

• status changed from assigned to closed.
• resolution set to invalid.

Argh...

placed at the bottom of the page. Probably stopped reading the docs too early. And thought (experience from other system) this would be implicit behaviour (placing Footnotes at the foot of the document).

I can see how this implementation offers greater flexibility, but still would suggest that the FootnoteMacro? should by default "flush" all pending content at the bottom of the page.

side note: after your suggestion, I placed [[Footnote]] at the bottom of the page and it still didn't work. ;-)

So: My bad. FootNoteMacro works, resolution: invalid. Maybe docs or default behaviour could be improved for more intuitive use, but so far I'm ok with it.

### (follow-up: ↓ 8 ) 10/20/12 10:29:32 changed by anonymous

Oh - BTW - On my System I do not get the aforementioned error "Error: Failed to load processor Footnote" - I just get a

Footnote?

### (in reply to: ↑ 5 ) 10/22/12 04:46:41 changed by rjollos

I can see how this implementation offers greater flexibility, but still would suggest that the FootnoteMacro should by default "flush" all pending content at the bottom of the page.

Sure, that makes sense - append to the bottom of the page if they haven't already been flushed. I'll keep that in mind while working on t:#9037. I might get that change integrated here as well, but currently my attention is on t:#9037 when I have time to work on footnotes.

So: My bad. FootNoteMacro works, resolution: invalid. Maybe docs or default behaviour could be improved for more intuitive use, but so far I'm ok with it.

Let me know if you have some specific ideas for changing the docs, or feel free to edit the wiki page on your own.

### (in reply to: ↑ 6 ) 10/22/12 04:50:42 changed by rjollos

Oh - BTW - On my System I do not get the aforementioned error "Error: Failed to load processor Footnote" - I just get a Footnote? link to some nonexistant document.

I see the same behavior on newer versions of Trac. I think they've just gotten better about handling broken, removed or mistyped macro names.

### Add/Change #10481 (No Footnotes at all in Trac 1.0)

Change Properties