[ekimbernow]

Fixes #200.

fn/@underline was ignored. It is now applied to the literal callout run, in both the body reference and the footnote, when @callout is specified. The footnote text is not underlined by the attribute.

• DocxGenerator.makeFootnote(): read @underline; new setCalloutUnderline() helper validates against STUnderline.
• simplewpml-base.rng: declare fn/@underline (same values as run/@underline).
• Test testFootnoteCalloutUnderline with simplewpml-issue-200-fn-underline.swpx.
• README release note.

Scope (callout only vs. whole footnote) is still to be confirmed in the issue discussion.

Verified by regenerating IFRS07.swpx and checking the rendering in Word: underlined callout "1" in both places, plain "2".

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[rajko-furlan]

Re scope: This depends on the footnote type. If it's a normal footnote then the scope can be inclusive (callout + footnote). But if it's a reference footnote then it must apply only to the callout.
Think about it this way. The styling is there to indicate footnote changes (new or deleted). If you add a note then underline (i.e., new) must be applied to the callout and to the footnote. But if you add a reference then it must apply only to the callout as only the callout is new while the footnote is potentially there already. I'm not sure though now this actually works in Wordinator.

[ekimbernow]

Added a note to the RNG docs and README on using fn/@underline for new footnotes vs. new references, per the discussion in #200.