Footnotes versus pandoc

[chreekat]

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.

[snoyberg]

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).