Timeline for Markdown footnotes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2022 at 3:32 | comment | added | CAFxX | This argument was always a bit shaky, and is provably wrong now: many other "non-Wikipedia" platforms - including Github and mkdocs - now support footnotes natively in their Markdown flavors. SE not supporting footnotes is just a source of confusion and fragmentation. | |
| Jun 6, 2019 at 4:00 | comment | added | sleblanc | The folks behind HTML standardisation keep telling us to use HTML as semantic markup instead of presentational markup. A few hours of development time to properly implement it is nothing compared to the benefits it provides in having this data semantically interpreted. | |
| Oct 17, 2017 at 1:41 | comment | added | Benjamin R | Why is this the accepted answer? It's the lowest voted. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 21:30 | comment | added | Foliovision | Just add footnotes properly for heaven sakes. Your smart ass comment about "eating up the dev team's time" earned you another downvote. | |
| S May 15, 2016 at 7:39 | history | suggested | GiantCowFilms | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved the formatting on the citation needed thingy
|
| May 15, 2016 at 3:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 15, 2016 at 7:39 | |||||
| Aug 6, 2015 at 3:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Aug 6, 2015 at 6:06 | |||||
| Jun 19, 2015 at 22:35 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @random They're only legit content tags when used to indicate superscripts and subscripts semantically. When using them just to fiddle fonts size, that's (mis)using content tags as presentation tags and does break content/design separation. HTML footnotes should be formatted by the stylesheet. | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 15:16 | comment | added | abarnert | While this pretty much works, and it's what I've done for years, there are multiple reasons why it's far from ideal. Too many to put in a comment, so I wrote an answer. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 22:50 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 11, 2013 at 22:57 | |||||
| Jul 22, 2013 at 6:00 | comment | added | chharvey |
The correct HTML element to use would probably be <small>, as <sub> is intended for semantic subscripts, that is, removing the <sub> tag would result in a change in meaning.
|
|
| Jun 21, 2011 at 19:13 | comment | added | jalf |
Well, bold or links aren't needed either, are they? It's not about need, but convenience. The ability to make footnotes using markdown would be useful, whether or not it is essential. Asterisks, or <sup> can *look ok, but it'd be nice to have the functionality too. Links back and forth between the footnote and the text it refers to
|
|
| Jan 16, 2010 at 19:08 | comment | added | Arjan | @random, indeed. That's why I dislike using them for formatting... The text of a footnote is not the same as superscript or subscript. | |
| Dec 9, 2009 at 14:09 | comment | added | random |
@Arjan <sup> and <sub> are content tags.
|
|
| Nov 9, 2009 at 11:48 | comment | added | Arjan |
I dislike using <sub> or <sup> to format text -- for me that breaks separating content from design.
|
|
| Aug 23, 2009 at 17:04 | vote | accept | Vinko Vrsalovic | ||
| Jul 14, 2009 at 20:15 | comment | added | Marc Gravell |
No need for <hr> - a few dashes works too... ---
|
|
| Jul 14, 2009 at 19:51 | comment | added | Eric |
The <hr> was way too spaced out, but the <sub> tag worked great. Good call.
|
|
| Jul 14, 2009 at 19:51 | history | edited | Eric | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 70 characters in body
|
| Jul 14, 2009 at 19:28 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | @Vinko Vrsalovic - An horizontal rule (<hr>) followed by a subscript tag (<sub>) would probably do nicely. | |
| Jul 14, 2009 at 15:59 | comment | added | Vinko Vrsalovic | Yes, I only wanted a different font for footnotes | |
| Jul 14, 2009 at 14:26 | comment | added | Eric | @rcar: Brilliant. Simply, brilliant. | |
| Jul 14, 2009 at 13:56 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | [citation] Page Name: Podcast #17 (responses); Primary Author: Jeff Atwood; Secondary Author: Unknown; Citation: "Again, I know you are not Wikipedia..." | |
| Jul 14, 2009 at 13:47 | history | answered | Eric | CC BY-SA 2.5 |