For some reason, whenever I convert inline footnotes to inspector footnotes, the footnote ends up inside the quotation mark.
So for example.
inline:
text text text, "quote quote quote."footnote footnote footnote
after inspector conversion:
text text text, “quote quote quote.[footnote number]”
This should not be, because in many citation styles, the footnote number should be outside the quotation mark.
Thanks, we have this on the list for refinement. It’s a bit tricky with the algorithm for placing the inspector footnotes, and there’s an option for determining whether it goes inside or outside the punctuation, but some cases of double punctuation like this (period-quote) throw it. Even though there are cases when the footnote marker should appear inside the quotation, if you deliberately put the inline footnote outside the quote, converting it to an inspector note should leave it in the same place, and likewise creating the inspector note after the quotation should place it outside rather than in.
Does it have something to do with spacing? I tend to leave no space between my text and my footnote:
i.e. text text text.footnote footnote
under the assumption that if I leave a space in the footnote, it would screw with the formatting, but might it actually work the other way around?
No, the spacing is unrelated. You can though add additional spacing inside the footnote formatting to pad your footnote, so you’re not running your words together. The extra space at the beginning will be stripped out during compile.