link soup

[Yuri T.]

> There is also a distinction in print to make between footnotes and

> references/bibliographies. The traditional difference in print being


There really are _three_ things.  There are footnotes, endnotes, and
bibliographic references.  Footnotes and endnotes are both usually
marked with superscript symbols and serve essentially the same purpose
- to provide a comment (which _may_ include a bibliographic reference
in some writing styles).   The difference is that footnotes got at the
bottom of the page and endnotes go in the end of the paper/book.  
This distinction is lost on a webpage.  Additionally, I have never
seen a paper that would use both endnotes and footnotes.  
Bibliographic references  usually uses something other than just a
number (e.g. "(Smith 1999)" or "[Smith99]), and the references are
often alphabetized (which one never does with footnotes).

I think markdown needs one solution for footnotes/endnotes and another
one for bibliography.   You can't use the same for both, if only
because many documents use footnotes and bibliographic references at
the same time.  So, I think it's best to leave [^1] syntax for
footnotes and start a separate thread on bibliographic references.

 - yuri