amsart: `\thanks{}` translated to `acknowledgements`, not `note`

[nschloe]

trafficstars

When using article, \thanks{} are correctly translated into a <note> -- it's really just a footnote with slightly different formatting.

When using amsart, however, it gets translated into <acknowledgements>. Probably a bit dramatic.

MWE:

\documentclass{article}
% \documentclass{amsart}

\title{X}

\begin{document}

\thanks{thx}
\maketitle

\end{document}

LaTeXML output:

<note role="thanks">thx</note>
<title>X</title>

Output when using the amsart class:

<title>X</title>
<acknowledgements>thx</acknowledgements>

[brucemiller]

But amsart redefines/repurposes \thanks to be more like acknowledgements, as I understand it. Are you saying that it shouldn't be an ackknowledgement, or simply that the style of acknowledgement is too dramatic for your tastes?

[nschloe]

The amsart handbook says under 4.6. Acknowledgments of support and other first-page footnotes:

Use the command \thanks to acknowledge grants and other kinds of support or for other general information not covered by one of the more specific commands such as \keywords or \subjclass. Enter \thanks immediately following the address(es) for the relevant author, not within the scope of the \author{} command (this is different from basic LATEX). Like \address, \thanks can appear more than once in the top matter. Each occurrence will be printed as an unnumbered footnote at the bottom of the first page of the article.

A \thanks{thx} is still rendered as a regular footnote:

One might argue that while the contents are usually acknowledgements, the form is a footnote, so LaTeXML's output should be <note>.

Opinions?

[dginev]

Opinions?

The usual opinion is that if a certain construct is consistently used to serve a "semantic" function, latexml should try to preserve that information in the structured markup. So the key text of the quote you shared is:

Use the command \thanks to acknowledge grants and other kinds of support

That is sufficient motivation for us to add markup for this intention, and then allow people to style it with different designs through CSS.

[nschloe]

Iirc, I had a case where it wasn't used for an acknowledgement, and while

looks good enough in a LaTeX document, styling

<acknowledgements>Contact: [email protected]</acknowledgements>

as an acknowledgement gets weird.

Anyway, I'll let you do with it whatever you think is right.

[dginev]

Oh, we also have endless discussions about markup abuse! The easy answer:

• is to wash our hands and say "that should have been \footnote, it is user error".

The entertaining answer I often reach for is "is there a closed set of common misuses that we can detect during conversion?" Since e.g. if we can detect "contact:" as part of the content, we can hot-swap for a footnote (edit: actually, we have ltx:contact for such bits) as a guard during the Core conversion. But each of those has to be negotiated individually, since it's an AI-hard problem, and we can introduce a lot of patchiness to the code.

Pretty much upto @brucemiller to decide on the strategy here, I think it's a common situation in e.g. arXiv and other "wild type" uses of LaTeX.