I also was not around when the current syntax was proposed, but I
personally find the caret very intuitive due to its association with
superscripts. I immediately connected the two upon first seeing it,
and have never had to check a reference for that little tidbit again.
Now, I suppose if one has
Hi list!
Take this markdown input:
* asdf
* asdf
* asdf
asdf
What I want:
ul
liasdf
ul
liasdf/li
liasdf/li
/ul
pasdf/p/li
/ul
But markdown puts the first asdf into a paragraph. There is nothing I
Le 2008-02-08 à 2:26, Richard Taytor a écrit :
I searched the list but didn't find an answer to this question.
Why is the caret[^c] preferred over the asterisk[*a] for footnote
markers?
[^c]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caret
[*a]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
I'm not the one
why not [use the caret]?
As mentioned, the caret is clearly associated with superscript; however,
footnotes are the semantic subject here, not superscript. Footnotes are one way
of presenting notes, which can also be presented as endnotes and sidenotes
(which need no markers).
In any case, I
