133

So one feature that I really wish markdown had was support for really small tiny text. Which I just produced by using the <sup> tag. I think this could be implemented by using the caret symbol like so:

So this is normal text ^and this is tiny text^.

Is this a reasonable feature request? Also what ideas do you have for markdown expansion?

Improve this question
6
  • 11
    And how about <sub>? And <small>? IIRC the request to add <small> was denied. But you can (ab)use <sup><sub> for this.
    – user138231
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 2:55
  • @BalusC: Well I just want tiny text in general. I wouldn't mind if they used my ^ symbol and just applied some CSS to make the text smaller. I don't really care if the text is actually above or below the normal text.
    – Kredns
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 3:09
  • 7
    @Jon: WOW! I just looked at your edit and I can't believe I spelled it like that.
    – Kredns
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 3:11
  • Haha, did you manage to grab any lettuce for your carrots?
    – Jared Harley
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 3:15
  • Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/40035/allow-the-small-tag and meta.stackexchange.com/questions/26756/…
    – user138231
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 12:54
  • Already exists in WikiText.
    – neverMind9
    Commented Jun 18, 2019 at 21:15

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
186

Workaround: have you tried combining the <sup> and <sub> tags?

If you layer them like this, <sub><sup>combining the two tags</sup></sub>, you get tiny text that's almost in line with the normal text. Nice for making very small caveats to your answers!

Improve this answer
6
  • 6
    Thanks for the idea, but still thats a lot of typing!
    – Kredns
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 3:39
  • 34
    Clever. For some reason I always pictured them canceling each other out, which is patent nonsense
    – Michael Mrozek
    Commented Jun 16, 2010 at 4:43
  • @Jared, What's the browser compatibility like?
    – Pacerier
    Commented May 12, 2014 at 8:46
  • @MichaelMrozek Why is it patent nonsense? Still confused as to why exactly they don't.
    – Hashim Aziz
    Commented Oct 16, 2018 at 16:15
  • 1
    @Hashim They both make the text smaller, just the positioning is different, so nesting them is going to shrink the text twice
    – Michael Mrozek
    Commented Oct 16, 2018 at 16:23
  • 2
    Order is important here. <sup><sub>...</sub></sup> was a bit above center. The suggested <sub><sup>...</sup></sub> was more centered.
    – ChrisFreeman
    Commented Apr 25, 2019 at 16:40
59

<sub>+<sup> seems like a horrible answer, really. You're mangling your HTML markup to get a particular display style with completely different semantic meaning — and you're assuming default display implementations of <sub> and <sup> while you're at it.

I would love a <small> or "footnote" markdown syntax too (that's how I got here), but as far as I can tell, the only reasonable way to add it to your documents is using the HTML tag itself.

Improve this answer
2
  • 14
    <Pedantry>Its not HTML markup its Markdown </Pedantry>
    – Some Helpful Commenter
    Commented Apr 6, 2012 at 15:55
  • 16
    Ha, well if you're using tags and not Markdown syntax, it's HTML. You can use both in the same context.
    – RobW
    Commented Apr 6, 2012 at 20:52
53

Normal text
Small text
Tiny text
REALLY SMALL TEXT

is: 

Normal text
<sub><sup>Small text</sup></sub>
<sub><sup><sub><sup>Tiny text</sup></sub></sup></sub>
<sub><sup><sub><sup><sub><sup><sub><sup><sub><sup><sub><sup><sub><sup><sub><sup>REALLY SMALL TEXT</sup></sub></sup></sub></sup></sub></sup></sub></sup></sub></sup></sub></sup></sub></sup></sub>
Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .