Use double spaces to separate footnote lines, so that the definition numbers line up.Use a second tag for each number in the footnote section, again making it clear that it's a footnote definition and not part of the body.Use a tag to render the footnote definitions in small text, again making it clear that it's a footnote section.Use a horizontal line to separate the footnotes section, making it clear that it's not just a continuation of the body.Using numbers is a lot easier to remember than a list of symbols, and looks nicer, since their heights will always be equal (as opposed to * and †, for example). What do youĪpologies for a another response, but I've found the perfect combination to incorporate elements of all the recommendations above. Iįind the second one more pleasing, and easier to read. Compare the rendered text in the first and second approaches. A footnote name must be a single alphanumeric word containing no punctuation. Footnote references Named and numbered footnote references can be written using the following syntax. I find the second one moreġ This is the footnote text, which spans several The above cross referencing is not a Markdown feature, and relies on Documenter.jl, which is used to build base Julias documentation. The rendered text in the first and second approaches. Now, surprise, comes a footnote1.ġ This is the footnote text, which spans several lines. Also, the text is slightly larger, and thus easier to read. I prefer the following approach, which gives better-looking line spacing. The second one more pleasing, and easier to read.
Now, surprise, comes a footnote 1.ġ This is the footnote text, which spans several lines.Ĭompare the rendered text in the first and second approaches. Rendered text in the first and second approaches.
#Rmarkdown footnote code#
I have brief bits of code in my footnotes all the time. does work with embedded code, but it looks ugly on most browsers.Part of the reason I use asterisks instead of numbered footnotes is to remind myself that auto-numbered lists and don't work together. doesn't work in combination with some other kinds of formatting.This is clearly an abuse of 's semantic meaning.I want the footnotes to be smaller/less important-looking, but on many browsers, subscript text is too small, as Eugene Siedel's answer shows.I've been using \* and \*\* and so on in the text and a - rule followed by \* at the end, and it sort of works, but:
#Rmarkdown footnote plus#
Plus it looks like you know what you are talking about and therefore encourages upvoting. So why not just use links or parentheticals instead of footnotes? Because we aspire to the sort of answers expected in academia where footnotes are de rigueur.
#Rmarkdown footnote manual#
Just writing that example makes me yearn for footnote support even the Markdown code looks clean! The output is more professional looking than my manual footnote technique and includes all sorts of niceties like auto-numbering and inline footnote text.Ģ. PHP Markdown Extra has a really cool footnote syntax 3 that I'd like to have available on Stack Exchange: These lines are _going to_ intersect! Compared to using advanced links, roll-your-own footnotes seems practically barbaric. It also gets tricky when editing in a new footnote since you need to manually adjust the numbering of notes that come after. tends to break the numbered items and I don't bother to play with it usually. Also, the footnote text ought to be smaller than then text in the body, but adding. There's no easy way to set up links from the footnote mark to the footnote text and back again. It's not that hard to do, but it's still a pain and the results aren't ideal. Here's what I do 1 to simulate footnotes: These lines are _going to_ intersect1!
0 kommentar(er)
