I want to request the Footnote plugin to be reenabled for richer content creation in the Purism community forums. For details, see its thread on Discourse Meta.
It would help with a guide I am writing up about regarding a Citizen Lab report, as I can start referencing relevant links towards various topics and concepts. If given a choice between only one method of displaying them, I would choose inline over non-inline.
Example code:
This would have to be performed by a Purism sysadmin as it requires direct server/container access to update the .yml. The Purism sysadmin team currently has many higher-priority tasks on their plate; I can add this as a nice-to-have issue, but please don’t expect immediate action.
In the meantime, maybe some kind of Markdown pre-processing will do the trick - as anything that really needs a mass of footnotes is probably something that you would prepare offline anyway and then paste in when you are ready.
The only software I use that has Markdown support is Discourse; I have the guide as a draft due to this reason. However, sometimes I have to create new threads and transfer the guide to Tuta (previously Tutanota) instead, where it resides as a draft there too, albeit without Markdown support; it is exposed as raw code intead.
Oh, I meant something quick and dirty using e.g. awk 
If it were me, I would format it offline using whatever tools you like and then host it on one of your many servers and then just a post a link here. So you wouldn’t need to use markdown at all.
If nothing else, maybe LibreOffice has enough functionality to create the document, then export as PDF, then host a PDF file. (LibreOffice can also produce HTML but that may or may not meet your requirements. If using HTML from LibreOffice, I would strip the changelog before publishing.)
Ideally, you can have footnotes come up “on hover” (if using a mouse).
However if the footnote is only a link then none of this really applies - as links are easy to do without using footnotes.
If this feature could be reenabled, then I can create Markdown tables that are more functional, particularly for addressing Purism infrastructure costs/expenses, otherwise Markdown tables will seem to appear overwhelming in details:
I’m not sure what’s missing there (what’s the alternative that your’re looking for?), but that table seems fine (and contents great, kudos for working on that) and readable - especially if you click on it (it shows larger view like with images).
This is just a small snippet of a much longer Markdown table, and how Markdown tables work is that the longest entry in a row expands the entire row to its length. Reenabling the Discourse Footnote plugin would allow me to compress text entries down into expandable buttons, similar to tooltips, while maintaining a small form factor for each row, thus improving readability for the upcoming Markdown table for addressing Purism’s infrastructure costs. Otherwise, I will prioritize a Markdown table for the Whonix Forum first instead:
See also:
Edit: Disregard this post and its relevant replies as I was under a misapprehension regarding the required functionality.
It’s not disabled. (That said, I have no idea of the history of whether it was ever disabled or how it used to work.)
I think you just have your syntax wrong. Example:
PayPal, credit/debit card, Bitcoin, and more (except Monero) 10
And more 10
And a third reference [10]
And a fourth reference [10]
Syntax for the reference is left-square-bracket then e.g. number then right-square-bracket
Syntax for definition (preferably grouped at bottom of source post but won’t actually appear in your formatted post at all) is left-square-bracket then e.g. number then right-square-bracket then colon then space then a URL.
A reference will not appear correctly formatted in the preview window until the definition is present.
Note that the square brackets aren’t present in the formatted version and aren’t part of the link if you add an extra set and I couldn’t work out how to override that but it isn’t a big issue for me.
And if you like your footnote references smaller and elevated then you can enclose the whole reference in <sup>…</sup>
I’ve illustrated those footnote reference options in this post.
Markdown table with footnote code from Whonix Forum:
| Vulnerability | User-to-Kernel | User-to-User | Guest-to-Host | Guest-to-Guest | Cross-Thread |
|:---|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---|
| BHI | :x: | | :x: | | |
| GDS | :x: | :x: | :x: | :x: | |
| L1TF | | | :x: | | [^1] |
| MDS | :x: | :x: | :x: | :x: | [^1] |
| MMIO | :x: | :x: | :x: | :x: | [^1] |
| Meltdown | :x: | | | | |
| Retbleed | :x: | | :x: | | [^2] |
| RFDS | :x: | :x: | :x: | :x: | |
| Spectre_v1 | :x: | | | | |
| Spectre_v2 | :x: | | :x: | | |
| Spectre_v2_user | | :x: | | :x: | |
| SRBDS | :x: | :x: | :x: | :x: | |
| SRSO | :x: | | :x: | | |
| SSB[^3] | | | | | |
| TAA | :x: | :x: | :x: | :x: | [^1] |
[^1]: Disables SMT if cross-thread mitigations are selected and CPU is vulnerable
[^2]: Disables SMT if cross-thread mitigations are selected, CPU is vulnerable, and STIBP is not supported
[^3]: Speculative store bypass is always enabled by default (no kernel mitigation applied) unless overridden with `spec_store_bypass_disable` option
Attempted Markdown table with footnotes on Purism Community Forums:
| Vulnerability | User-to-Kernel | User-to-User | Guest-to-Host | Guest-to-Guest | Cross-Thread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BHI |  |
|
|||
| GDS | |
|
|
|
|
| L1TF | |
[^1] | |||
| MDS | |
|
|
|
[^1] |
| MMIO | |
|
|
|
[^1] |
| Meltdown | |
||||
| Retbleed | |
|
[^2] | ||
| RFDS | |
|
|
|
|
| Spectre_v1 | |
||||
| Spectre_v2 | |
|
|||
| Spectre_v2_user | |
|
|||
| SRBDS | |
|
|
|
|
| SRSO | |
|
|||
| SSB[^3] | |||||
| TAA | |
|
|
|
[^1] |
[^1]: Disables SMT if cross-thread mitigations are selected and CPU is vulnerable
[^2]: Disables SMT if cross-thread mitigations are selected, CPU is vulnerable, and STIBP is not supported
[^3]: Speculative store bypass is always enabled by default (no kernel mitigation applied) unless overridden with spec_store_bypass_disable option
Perhaps it has an incompatible plug-in i.e. using a different syntax - or a different version of something.
left-square-bracket hat 1 right-square-bracket will of course work in this forum because the name of the footnote will end up being ^1 e.g.
Reference one ^1
Reference two ^1
Definition follows after blank line but will be invisible in the formatted post.
If that’s what you want or don’t mind then all good.
No, it is the same plugin described at the very beginning of this topic over a year ago:
See also:
This guide did not implement footnotes correctly since they omitted the ^ characters at the end of their content body:
Ah, OK, I think I see what you are getting at now.
You want to see the footnotes listed either at the bottom of the table or, by your preference, inline.
Correct, inline is preferred because it reduces more overall clutter:
When done inline, there are no text under the Markdown table, so it looks very cleanly formatted and the size of the Markdown table is significantly more manageable with multiple listed entries. I am preparing a Markdown table with over thirty entries, so I need to compress as many of the rows as possible for readability.
OK, so with current functionality, the best you could do is put your footnotes on another website or websites i.e. effectively as citations rather than footnotes. In that scenario it would depend on what information you wanted to include in the footnote i.e. editorial comment from you v. fine print from the provider’s web site.
Right, the current situation is not ideal since I am using MediaWiki-style numbered citations as external URL references instead, so text entries next to them are unnecessarily bloated. If I attempt to switch out text entries with numbered citations linking external references, that will require @JCS to manually lookup information through them, which are extra network requests that should be avoided.