tags 293183 -fixed tags 293183 -fixed-in-experimental stop Hallo Heiko,
mit der von Arnaud gelieferten Beispieldatei tritt das Problem hier mit teTeX-beta_2.99.9 immer noch auf, und das enthält ein aktuelles hyperref. Seine Beispieldatei und die beobachteten Formatierungsänderungen hänge ich per Fullquote unten an, hier ist die Filelist: *File List* article.cls 2004/02/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class size10.clo 2004/02/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX file (size option) hyperref.sty 2003/11/30 v6.74m Hypertext links for LaTeX keyval.sty 1999/03/16 v1.13 key=value parser (DPC) pd1enc.def 2003/11/30 v6.74m Hyperref: PDFDocEncoding definition (HO) hyperref.cfg 2002/06/06 v1.2 hyperref configuration of TeXLive and teTeX url.sty 2004/03/15 ver 3.1 Verb mode for urls, etc. hpdftex.def 2003/11/30 v6.74m Hyperref driver for pdfTeX pifont.sty 2004/09/15 PSNFSS-v9.2 Pi font support (SPQR) upzd.fd 2001/06/04 font definitions for U/pzd. upsy.fd 2001/06/04 font definitions for U/psy. nameref.sty 2003/12/03 v2.21 Cross-referencing by name of section hyperfootnote-mini.out hyperfootnote-mini.out Gruß, Frank Arnaud Giersch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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, -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer