Footnote markdown plugin

Has the Discourse footnote plugin been considered? I missed footnotes when editing Vendoring third party libraries in CPython

Honestly, I either just add the Unicode “superscript number” characters¹ directly, or I insert <sup> HTML tags2. Either approach seems to work well enough for my purposes, and I don’t need to learn any new markup.

¹ like this…
2 or this.

1 Like

Thanks! I keep forgetting that some HTML markup is allowed :slight_smile:

1 Like

So… GitHub added support for footnotes: Footnotes now supported in Markdown fields | GitHub Changelog

It ould be nice to get footnote support here as well – I’ve been using [1] [2] as footnote markers, and it would be really nice to use proper footnotes instead.


Oooh, nice! Thanks for the link :slight_smile:

The thing that frustrates me most about Markdown is the inconsistent support for extensions. Sticking to the “lowest common denominator” is too limiting, whereas having to remember what works where is a PITA.

I skimmed this document. Looks like tables work both here and in github, so do fenced code blocks (well, that one’s no surprise). Heading IDs work in neither. Nor do definition lists. Strikethrough works in both. As do task lists, emoji and automatic URL linking.

Supporting footnotes here would keep the supported syntax consistent with github, FWIW. So that’s a +1 from me just for that reason.


I hit this discrepency in Supporting sdists and source trees in PEP 665 - #63 by pradyunsg yesterday.

Exploring this further: PSF is on a hosted-by-Discourse setup/plan, wherein the hosting and plugins on the instance are provided by Discourse. The footnotes plugin is only available in their highest tier of “Enterprise plugins”. (>.<)

And… footnotes[1] are here! :slight_smile:

  1. Yay! ↩︎

1 Like