footnote syntax

[Richard Taytor]

> why not [use the caret]?


As mentioned, the caret is clearly associated with superscript; however, footnotes are the semantic subject here, not superscript. Footnotes are one way of presenting notes, which can also be presented as endnotes and sidenotes (which need no markers).

In any case, I think footnote markers should not be restricted superscript. There are other patterns in use, which do not use superscript, such as "[Harvard referencing ][]". I find it useful to employ such full-height [reference links][*rlink], sometimes for notes as well as citations.

I don't see an overloading problem with using asterisk for footnotes.

[*rlink]: For monochrome text display (most printed material), markers (superscript or otherwise) are certainly useful, if not necessary; however, in the case of coloured hyperlinks, the markers (though they remain useful for long strings) are superfluous for cases in which the text in question may be directly linked instead. I don't mean to suggest that this form should replace existing footnote form, merely that the form and utility of notes can be easily augmented.

[Harvard referencing }: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_referencing