Hi All. I've just started using Markdown for my blog. So far it seems quite nice, but the one issue I've run into is a lack of "native" support for footnotes. I think that Daring Fireball's footnote style makes a lot of sense, and that's what I intend to use. However, it is a bit cumbersome to implement that style from within Markdown. I notice that the PHP Markdown Extra project has Daring Fireball-style footnote support, and it seems to be implemented in quite an intuitive manner. I was wondering if there were any plans to bring this functionality over to the standard Markdown. Just out of curiosity, John, how do you do the footnotes for Daring Fireball? (Actually, I do have one feature suggestion for the PHP Markdown Extra syntax. If you're posting to a CMS system where multiple articles may appear on the same HTML page, you need to assign each article a GUID so that the footnote links make sense (i.e., you can't have two articles that both use "fnref" as the anchor name for the footnotes, since you would end up with two anchors with the same name if two articles are published on the same page). It's of course possible to do this with a search and replace of "fnref" to something like "2007-01-23-1" prior to publishing. But, it would be nice if you could specify a document GUID and have the Markdown processor do that substitution for you.) I'm sorry if this has been discussed before; I didn't notice any mention of it on the list archives, but the search functionality seems to be a bit lacking. Anyway, any information would be appreciated. Thanks very much. Jonathan
Le 2007-01-23 ? 14:06, Jonathan Deber a ?crit :> (Actually, I do have one feature suggestion for the PHP Markdown > Extra syntax. If you're posting to a CMS system where multiple > articles may appear on the same HTML page, you need to assign each > article a GUID so that the footnote links make sense (i.e., you can't > have two articles that both use "fnref" as the anchor name for the > footnotes, since you would end up with two anchors with the same name > if two articles are published on the same page). It's of course > possible to do this with a search and replace of "fnref" to something > like "2007-01-23-1" prior to publishing. But, it would be nice if > you could specify a document GUID and have the Markdown processor do > that substitution for you.)It's already possible if you instantiate the parser yourself instead of calling the simplified Markdown function: $parser = new Markdown_Parser; $parser->fn_id_prefix = $entry_guid; $text = $parser->transform($text);> I'm sorry if this has been discussed before; I didn't notice any > mention of it on the list archives, but the search functionality > seems to be a bit lacking.And you could add that archives before April 2006 are hard to find: you have to manually craft the URLs for each months because they are not in the main list. Two and a half years of discussion are "missing" like this. Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
>It's already possible if you instantiate the parser yourself instead >of calling the simplified Markdown function: > > $parser = new Markdown_Parser; > $parser->fn_id_prefix = $entry_guid; > $text = $parser->transform($text);I figured it was probably possible. I have only taken a reasonably quick look at PHP Markdown Extra, and the basic documentation doesn't mention this. Thanks for the info.> > I'm sorry if this has been discussed before; I didn't notice any >> mention of it on the list archives, but the search functionality >> seems to be a bit lacking. > >And you could add that archives before April 2006 are hard to find: >you have to manually craft the URLs for each months because they are >not in the main list. Two and a half years of discussion are >"missing" like this. >I was wondering why the list seemed to be such a recent creation. Has anyone considered moving the list from mailman to Google Groups? They aren't perfect, but there is (unsurprisingly) very good search functionality. I feel a little silly suggesting this as a brand new list member, but it seemed relevant to the discussion... Cheers, Jonathan