Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Footnotes versus pandoc #32

Open
chreekat opened this issue Jul 28, 2016 · 1 comment
Open

Footnotes versus pandoc #32

chreekat opened this issue Jul 28, 2016 · 1 comment

Comments

@chreekat
Copy link

pandoc provides two sorts of footnotes. The syntax uses [^refid] instead of {^refid} for the reference, and [^refid]: text instead of {refid} text for the footnote itself. Any reason for the disparity?

Then there's also the inline reference ^[some note], and the fact that pandoc collects all scattered footnotes into a special <div> at the bottom of the document.

And the markup is different as well, but that doesn't really bother me too much.

@snoyberg
Copy link
Owner

No, no particular reason for the difference. I'm not opposed to changes to improve this, but in all honesty I've been considering moving over to CommonMark (and the cmark package).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants