Hello, > > > (a) May I propose the [^1] as an alternative footnotes syntax as a new > > feature? > > I sympathize with your concern, and [^1] may not have been a bad choice > when footnotes were introduced, but that ship has sailed long ago. > > There is enough footnote syntax in Org nowadays.
I saw only "fn:" related variations in the docs... > I'd rather keep it that > way. Even if somebody else implements this and provides a patch?... Thank you!
