The footmisc
package describes 3 additional systems in which one can apply numbering to footnotes in a paper:
bringhurst: ∗, †, ‡, §, ||, ¶.
chicago: ∗, †, ‡, §, ||, #.
wiley: ∗, ∗∗, †, ‡, §, ¶, ||.
This is in addition to these methods:
arabic numerals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
roman numerals: I, II, III, IV, V.
letters: a, b, c, d, e.
For my purposes, I think a system such as bringhurst, chicago, or wiley are suitable, because custom symbols are used:
- Arabic numerals appear to frequently throughout my document already.
- I can't find single-character unicode roman numerals exceeding 12. When rendered in XeTex, numbers above (such as "ⅫⅡ") appear with an added space.
- The letters in the alphabet look too much like the text of the document.
However, I find that the bringhurst, chicago, or wiley systems has some problems:
- They are limited to 6 or 7 symbols. I need at least 30, if not more.
- They do not appear to follow a logical pattern explaining the order or shape.
- They use symbols such as ¶, § and #, which I think usually carry very different meanings.
Are there any other sets of symbols within LaTeX's packages or from unicode which you think could make good footnote marks?
footmisc
andbigfoot
). If you have 30+ footnotes on one page, I would think you need, and want, to use regular Arabic numerals. There is, furthermore, no need for a 'logical' order of the various symbols since the order is clearly indicated by how 'high up' on a page they appear: as long as the order in the notes is the same, no one is going to get confused.[42]
rather than footnotes is a better idea?