If you put a note on your foot, it’s a footnote.[1]
All you gotta do is use a caret,[2] and some brackets.[3]
Like thisaway:
Sentence text.^[footnote text]
If you put a note on your foot, it’s a footnote.[1]
All you gotta do is use a caret,[2] and some brackets.[3]
Like thisaway:
Sentence text.^[footnote text]
Well, poo. When you post the thing, it makes a funky ellipsis instead of the superscript numbers and footnotes at the bottom that you crafted so carefully. So much for a fun discovery. Discourse, you done it again!
Click on the dotdotdots to see the fun with footnotes that don’t make any sense anymore.
Hmm…
I’d guess that the forum is set to use inline expansion of footnotes, since my post above used the full, “explicit” footnoting schema and it was still reduced to inline expansion:
(post depilated by author) [^1]
[^1]: This is a footnote
Finally! My dreams of becoming the Terry Pratchett of the message board set can be a reality!.[2]
Sweet!
(Now do a footnote that’s not a pipe. )
That’s what you get for keeping your tobacco in the toe end of a Persian slipper.
Oh, I just figured out what’s going on.
White Dot set up the footnote function for the forum. Duh.
This ^[is a footnote ^[of a footnote ^[of another footnote]]]
This [1]
This [^1 [^2 [^3]]]
[^1]: is a footnote
[^2]: of a footnote
[^3]: of another footnote
This [^1 [^2 [2]]]
Apparently nesting footnotes doesn’t work. We’ll have to keep doing those the old-fashioned way.
Your first one had the number but it didn’t know where it went so it just scrolled your post off the screen.