Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: Marginal Notes vs. Footnotes Message-ID: <1632@intercon.com> Date: 14 Dec 89 21:55:39 GMT References: <3520@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <1989Dec14.154807.2660@sq.sq.com> Sender: news@intercon.com Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Lines: 16 In article <1989Dec14.154807.2660@sq.sq.com>, lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) writes: > This is because they were traditionally often much harder to set than > footnotes. [Traditional typographers didn't have troff :-)] Another technique, which was used during the middle ages for commentaries, was to have the commentary in a smaller size *surrounding* the main text. This is absolutely beastly to typeset, though, so it isn't done much these days. TeX or extremely clever troff could do it, I suppose... It does gove a very nice even texture to the page, but I don't know how easy it actually is to read. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --