3

I'm typesetting a document with references using biblatex. I'm switching back and forth between the authoryear and numeric superscript styles, and the \autocite command works wonderfully until I have a sentence which has both a citation and a footnote. Eg:

This is a referenced sentence\autocite{Author:2011}\footnote{...requiring a footnote.}.

In the numeric/superscript style, both the citation and the footnote show up as superscripts, which is confusing. If I were going completely with the numeric superscript method, I'd modify these occurrences to read something like:

This is a referenced sentence (Ref \cite{Author:2011})\footnote{...requiring a footnote.}.

But this will end up with the odd (Ref Author,2011) text when using authoryear. Is there some way to manage these occurrences automatically so that I can continue using both of these citation formats from the same document?

3
  • 1
    \autocite scans ahead one character to move punctuation around. Conceivably you could have \autocite look ahead to handle \footnote, but this feature would be (at best) nontrivial to implement. Do you use postnotes with \autocite under authoryear? For you proposed output under numeric, how would you distinguish between citation superscripts and footnote marks?
    – Audrey
    Aug 14, 2011 at 21:11
  • in this case, I'd change it from ^{131}^1 to (ref 131)^1, where 1 is the footnote and 131 is the reference -- that is, I'd use normal text (\cite rather than \supercite) for references in this case, which is standard in some journals in my field. Since I've heard no answer, I'll probably have to decide if it's worth putting together a command of my own...
    – Noah
    Aug 15, 2011 at 2:18
  • Would all citation superscripts change from ^x to (ref x)? If not, what about the case: "First sentence (ref 131).^1 Second sentence.^1"? How would one know whether the second superscript refers to the citation or the footnote? A more comprehensive example of what you're wanting to achieve might help.
    – Audrey
    Aug 15, 2011 at 3:25

1 Answer 1

2

It seems that biblatex version 1.6 produce the correct behavior:

\RequirePackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@book{test,
author="John Smith",
title="TITLE",
year="2009",
publisher="PUP",
}
\end{filecontents*}
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[a6paper]{geometry}
\usepackage[style=numeric,backend=biber]{biblatex}
\bibliography{\jobname}
\begin{document}
This is a referenced sentence\autocite{test}\footnote{...requiring a footnote.}.
\end{document}

enter image description here

5
  • Noah mentioned a "numeric superscript" style. In other words (I think) style=numeric,autocite=superscript. You'll get the defect he's referring to by using those options. It seems he alternates between these and just style=authoryear.
    – Audrey
    Sep 4, 2011 at 18:26
  • @Audrey: Now we have the verification that a minimal example is very important ;-). I also get another output with authoryear as described by the OP Sep 4, 2011 at 20:34
  • Yeah. He wants to be able to switch between the two styles, hence the use of the "style-independent" command \autocite. This is an interesting problem, but the desired output he's wanting (as I understand it) results in ambiguity between footnote marks and citations. Hopefully he'll respond with some more details and we can work out a solution. I'd leave your answer as a placeholder for now.
    – Audrey
    Sep 4, 2011 at 20:43
  • @Audrey: In this case it is only a placeholder :-(. We will wait. Sep 4, 2011 at 20:49
  • hrm, thanks for taking another look at this; I just handed in a draft of my thesis to my committee but have the defense upcoming so I won't have a chance to look at this again until I work on formatting the final library version :)
    – Noah
    Sep 8, 2011 at 20:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .