Bug: Crazy footnote numbering in beta 8

I created a test document by copying a paragraph from a Logos resource, and the footnotes came across fine. Then I built that document into a PBB and the footnote numbering is messed up. Instead of 2, 3, 4, 5, it is 12, 23, 34, 45.

(Also, note how small the font is in the new PBB book, as I noted in another thread.)

Source docx:

4744.test.docx

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

I created a test document by copying a paragraph from a Logos resource, and the footnotes came across fine. Then I built that document into a PBB and the footnote numbering is messed up. Instead of 2, 3, 4, 5, it is 12, 23, 34, 45.

The footnotes in the Word document created from your Logos book are not actually real footnotes. For example, if you delete a footnote in Word that's been pasted from Logos, the other footnotes won't then renumber themselves. So I think what's happened is the PBB has numbered the footnotes, by adding it's own footnote number to the 'fake' footnote number that was in your Word document.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/259251#Comment_259251

The footnotes in the Word document created from your Logos book are not actually real footnotes. For example, if you delete a footnote in Word that's been pasted from Logos, the other footnotes won't then renumber themselves. So I think what's happened is the PBB has numbered the footnotes, by adding it's own footnote number to the 'fake' footnote number that was in your Word document.

You are right, of course. So the bug is that Logos shouldn't be renumbering "custom" footnotes? Or that they should be removing the custom character if they aren't going to use it.

Tonya J Ross

Using the test document you attached I reproduced the issue. I noticed your sample started with a footnote 2, so I added a number 1 in the first sentence to see what happened. The copied footnotes in the compiled document changed from 12, 23, 34, 45 to 22, 33, 44, 55 respectively, while the one I added stayed as a single number.

So, then I compared the setup for footnotes 1 (which displayed correctly when compiled) and 2 (which duplicated the number). 1 is on the left, 2 on the right.

So it is the 'Custom mark' that is the issue. The copied footnotes are being treated as such in the Word document; they wouldn't automatically renumber themselves when deleting one because of the custom mark.

After deleting the custom marks the document compiled correctly (though if you want to have the footnotes start at two, you will have to change the 'Start at' number). So, it looks like the compiled PB is showing both the automatic numbering and the custom marks. I would posit that the behavior which would bring the most consistent results would be for the automatic numbers to be ignored when a custom mark is present. Because deleting all those custom marks could be a real pain. [:P]

I'll send this to the Developers and see what they make of it. Thank you for reporting it.