UseJunior Book a Demo

ECMA-376 edition 5, Part 1 § 17.11.14

w:footnoteReference identifier vs display number

Product posture and evidence for this normative section. The ECMA publication is the authority; this page reports only the pinned Safe DOCX projection.

ECMA publication ↗

Safe DOCX posture

targeted

w:footnoteReference identifier vs display number

w:id on w:footnoteReference is a *reference identifier*, not the displayed footnote number. For the supported Word-conventional package surface, display numbers are derived sequentially by document order. The runtime ordering logic (findReferencesInOrder in packages/docx-core/src/footnotes.ts) implements that distinction. The current isReservedId helper skips numeric IDs 0 and 1, following a convention seen in Word-produced packages. That is a conformance gap, not a rule of §17.11.14: the standard identifies separator and continuation- separator notes through note type and does not normatively reserve those numeric identifiers. Arbitrary packages that use 0 or 1 for user notes, full w:type interpretation, and complete w:customMarkFollows display-mark semantics are outside the present numbering claim. The compiled Lean checker selects the Transitional footnotes relationship from the fixed Main Document Part relationship set, scans namespace-resolved w:footnoteReference events, classifies definitions by w:type, and requires each canonical user reference ID to have exactly one package-local user definition. Unique unreferenced definitions remain valid. This claim is inplace-only and does not cover display numbering or custom marks.

Registry identity: ECMA-PART1-17-11-14

Schema declarations

Bounded evidence