You can customize the appearance of the footnotes with the footmisc
package. Here's an example:
\documentclass{book}
\usepackage[hang]{footmisc}
% do this \AtBeginDocument so that all font settings will be already made
\AtBeginDocument{
% set the \footnotemargin to 1.5em at \footnotesize
\footnotesize\setlength{\footnotemargin}{1.5em}\normalsize
% set the footnote parindent equal to the normal parindent
\edef\hangfootparindent{\the\parindent}
% no parskip in foonotes
\renewcommand{\hangfootparskip}{0pt}
}
\usepackage{lipsum} % mock text
\begin{document}
\mainmatter
% we want to see what happens for two digit footnote numbers
\setcounter{footnote}{8}
a\footnote{\lipsum*[2]}b\footnote{\lipsum[2]\lipsum*[3]}
\end{document}

You can set differently the parameters; just remember that \hangfootparindent
and \hangfootparskip
are macros, rather than lengths.
The \edef
trick is used to store the current value of \parindent
.
Note The hyperlinks of hyperref
don't work with footmisc
, so one has to say
\hypersetup{hyperfootnotes=false}
if hyperref
is loaded.
With your attempt, you lose the possibility of breaking a footnote across pages, which is undesirable in general, but sometimes is the only option, particularly for long footnotes.
A way to get footnote marks in the footnote not to be superscripted is the following:
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\newcommand{\sigur@makefnmark}{\@thefnmark}
\pretocmd{\@makefntext}{\let\@makefnmark\sigur@makefnmark}{}{}
\makeatother
We patch the \@makefntext
so that a different macro is used for typesetting the footnote number. This won't work if you have footnotes to footnotes, of course. It's safe to change the meaning of \@makefnmark
because \@makefntext
is expanded in a group, so this change will not affect the typesetting of footnote marks in the text.
\setcounter{footnote}{8}
(or{98}
!) to see why not. Also, what is wrong, e.g., with thehang
option offootmisc.sty
?KOMA-Script
's\deffootnote
(available to standard classes via thescrextend
package) for these kind of things.footmisc
was designed (carefully, I'd guess) by someone who knows and understands (La)TeX very well. If you're worried about bad interactions, it will more likely be due to your 'lot of modifications' (what are you doing that is so crazy?), not bad interactions betweenfootmisc
and other standard packages. And, if there is, it would be good to find out so a fix can be made for future users! One of the strengths of LaTeX is that there is a large user base, which serves LaTeX well for finding package bugs and conflicts.