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?

  • 9
    And how about <sub>? And <small>? IIRC the request to add <small> was denied. But you can (ab)use <sup><sub> for this.
    – BalusC
    Jun 16 '10 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
    Jun 16 '10 at 3:09
  • 7
    @Jon: WOW! I just looked at your edit and I can't believe I spelled it like that.
    – Kredns
    Jun 16 '10 at 3:11
  • Haha, did you manage to grab any lettuce for your carrots? Jun 16 '10 at 3:15
  • Already exists in WikiText.
    – neverMind9
    Jun 18 '19 at 21:15

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!

  • 5
    Thanks for the idea, but still thats a lot of typing!
    – Kredns
    Jun 16 '10 at 3:39
  • 27
    Clever. For some reason I always pictured them canceling each other out, which is patent nonsense Jun 16 '10 at 4:43
  • @Jared, What's the browser compatibility like?
    – Pacerier
    May 12 '14 at 8:46
  • @MichaelMrozek Why is it patent nonsense? Still confused as to why exactly they don't. Oct 16 '18 at 16:15
  • @Hashim They both make the text smaller, just the positioning is different, so nesting them is going to shrink the text twice Oct 16 '18 at 16:23
  • 1
    Order is important here. <sup><sub>...</sub></sup> was a bit above center. The suggested <sub><sup>...</sup></sub> was more centered. Apr 25 '19 at 16:40

<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.

  • 10
    <Pedantry>Its not HTML markup its Markdown </Pedantry> Apr 6 '12 at 15:55
  • 11
    Ha, well if you're using tags and not Markdown syntax, it's HTML. You can use both in the same context.
    – RobW
    Apr 6 '12 at 20:52

Normal text
Small text
Tiny text


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>
  • 2
    Well done, the answered 2 hours ago link killed the internets.
    – user7116
    Sep 22 '11 at 20:56
  • 1
    @sixlettervariables fixing that up... seems Null found an ages-old bug in our "quick edit" route. Sep 23 '11 at 6:59
  • 2
    @sixlettervariables success! Sep 23 '11 at 7:35
  • @JarrodDixon: many thanks sir. The tubes are now accepting the dump truck loads of data I have for them.
    – user7116
    Sep 23 '11 at 13:38

see R Markdown - changing font size and font type in html output this works fine - small top link:

## <a name="Some-setup"></a>Somesetup [<font size="2">top</font>](#Content)

You must log in to answer this question.

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