footnote syntax

[Waylan Limberg]

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 never seen the caret represent a superscript
in other contexts, it may not be quite as clear. Even so, the caret
looks much like an up-arrow, so why not?

On Feb 8, 2008 7:10 AM, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:

> 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 who came up with the syntax in the first place, but I

> think it's clearer to use a new character rather than overloading the

> asterisk with yet another meaning. Also, to me at least, ^ evokes the

> exponentiation operator which is represented as superscript in

> mathematics, which in turn could make me think of a superscript

> footnote marker.

>

>

> Michel Fortin

> michel.fortin at michelf.com

> http://michelf.com/

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>




-- 
----
Waylan Limberg
waylan at gmail.com