Mardi le 01 février 2005, vers 23:26:37 (CET), Prakash Countcham a écrit: >> What is the difference? Is it possible to see the difference in a >> document that does not use this entcs.cls? > > The difference is the number of letters on the second line. I think it is > possible to see the difference in a standard document, but I don't have time > to find the correct margins, characters size, etc. to reproduce the same > bug.
Hello, Unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce the bug by using footnotes with a standard document class. After further investigations, it seems that the bug appears because entcls.cls redefines footnotes to use \refstepcounter instead of \stepcounter. The following code exhibits a similar bug, using only standard article class and \refstepcounter: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \documentclass{article} %\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref} %\usepackage[dvips]{hyperref} %\usepackage{hyperref} \newcounter{a} \newlength{\La} \newlength{\Lb} \begin{document} \setlength{\La}{\textwidth} \addtolength{\La}{-\parindent} \settowidth{\Lb}{ hyphen} \addtolength{\La}{-\Lb} \newcommand{\test}[1]{% \par\rule{\La}{1pt} #1 \rule{5em}{1pt}.} \test{hyphenation} \test{hyphenation\stepcounter{a}} \test{hyphenation\refstepcounter{a}} \end{document} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% In the third test the word "hyphenation" is not always hyphenated. In the following table, you can see the results for different cases: * without hyperref; * with hyperref, without option (it loads automatically the "dvips" driver with latex, and the "pdftex" driver with pdflatex); * with hyperref, with option specifying the driver to use (i.e. "dvips" for latex, or "pdftex" for pdflatex). In the table, I note "correct" when the word is hyphenated, and "wrong" when it is not. DVI (latex) PDF (pdflatex) ---------------------------------------------------------- without hyperref correct correct hyperref, no option wrong wrong hyperref, with option correct wrong ---------------------------------------------------------- Note that the behavior is correct with hyperref when the "dvips" option is given while it is not with the implicit behavior. This is because the "dvips" option redefines [EMAIL PROTECTED], while it is not the case when the default is used: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] } This particular point may be a Debian (or teTex) specificity: with the upstream hyperref (as found on CTAN), the default driver is "hypertex". It is this different behavior with or without [EMAIL PROTECTED] that made me try to modify this macro. > Furthermore, the bug disappears if we just remove the package hyperref from > entcs.cls . It disappears too if you modify (or comment) the redefinitions of \footnote and \footnotemark in entcs.cls. >>> Arnaud Giersch, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, found >>> that it was a bug of hyperref and proposed the following patch for the >> >> Why do you think that inserting an italic correction here makes a >> difference between latex and pdflatex? > > I don't really understand it, but Donald Arseneau suggested that in > http://groups.google.fr/groups?threadm=c1.2b8.2K1LTn%2409i%40ag.rhein-main.de I do not fully understand myself why an italic correction does the trick. I suggested this patch by simply following the advice given by Donal Arseneau. After some thinking, I do not even know if the patch is good enough or if it breaks things elsewhere. :-( About this old c.t.t. thread, the following comment, found in hyperref.dtx, suggests that the bug talked about if already fixed. I however did not find the relevant Changelog entry. % Redefine [EMAIL PROTECTED], borrowing its code (at the % cost of getting out of sync with latex.ltx), to take % advantage of its white space and hyphenation fudges. If we just % overload it, we can get variant documents (the word before the % footnote is treated differently). Thanks to David Carlisle and % Brian Ripley for confusing and helping me on this. Regards, -- Arnaud