Agreed. However, I feel it's way better than a "traditional" system of footnotes and annotations. It's difficult to navigate due to the sheer amount of informa

Agreed. However, I feel it's way better than a "traditional" system of footnotes and annotations. It's difficult to navigate due to the sheer amount of information it contains, most of which can be ignored. That being said, it can certainly be improved, but I empathize. I bet there are literary critics who would kill to have a nice system to generate documentation in multiple formats... Do any exist?