pandoc provides two sorts of footnotes. The syntax uses [^refid] instead of {^refid} for the reference, and [^refid]: text instead of {refid} text for the footnote itself. Any reason for the disparity?
Then there's also the inline reference ^[some note], and the fact that pandoc collects all scattered footnotes into a special <div> at the bottom of the document.
And the markup is different as well, but that doesn't really bother me too much.
No, no particular reason for the difference. I'm not opposed to changes to improve this, but in all honesty I've been considering moving over to CommonMark (and the cmark package).
pandoc provides two sorts of footnotes. The syntax uses
[^refid]
instead of{^refid}
for the reference, and[^refid]: text
instead of{refid} text
for the footnote itself. Any reason for the disparity?Then there's also the inline reference
^[some note]
, and the fact that pandoc collects all scattered footnotes into a special<div>
at the bottom of the document.And the markup is different as well, but that doesn't really bother me too much.