I posted with a footnote (via Drafts) using [^ text] that didn’t post as a footnote. What Markdown does Micro.blog support?
1 Like
Footnotes do work using that syntax (no space after ^). I am pretty sure Micro.blog uses Goldmark, but if it does not, it uses Blackfriday to process Markdown. Both are essentially Github-flavored Markdown, with Goldmark being CommonMark compliant.
1 Like
Not that I know of-- but it’s possible a custom theme with custom parameters may change what features are enabled-- that was possible with Blackfriday at least. Maybe try and install my plugin for Bigfoot and see if it shows up? It’s possible that footnotes by default are put somewhere that your template doesn’t display, but I kind of doubt it. You should see the content in the page HTML if that’s the case though-- can you link me to the post in question?
1 Like
It makes no difference whether or not I’m running Bigfoot.
1 Like
That in-line footnote definition style is not universally supported. Most Markdown footnote definitions require it to be defined separately, like so:
This is regular text.[^note]
[^note]: This is the body of the note.
Try that?
2 Likes
This is correct-- I’ve actually never seen the in-line footnote style.
1 Like
That does work, and allows me to use Drafts instead of Ulysses (which makes my Logitech mice go bananas on the iPad, but that’s another story). Multimarkdown supports both types of footnote; I prefer inline because of it’s simplicity, but a solution is a solution (he said, with great wisdom). Thanks to for the help.
1 Like