1671628
results for "*"
-
I mean yes they are *also* in brackets but they are definitely smaller text and superscripted
[tantek]
at
2025-05-08 21:15
-
! Am I looking at the wrong site? :-D
btrem
at
2025-05-08 21:14
-
rosipov: I have all my webcomics and youtube subscriptions in there, so it feels hard to compare between subscriptions
Zegnat
at
2025-05-08 21:14
-
Wikipedia’s footnotes are also small and superscripted
[tantek]
at
2025-05-08 21:14
-
I'm also surprised that's there's little mention of prior art, specifically wikipedia, which uses bracket footnotes, e.g., `[2]`. I've gone with that style for footnote references because it's what wikipedia uses. If it's good enough for them
btrem
at
2025-05-08 21:12
-
Zegnat what are some of your favorite RSS subscriptions
rosipov
at
2025-05-08 21:10
-
They're described as "less distracting." Well, for me at least, they are certainly less /visible/. So I guess in that sense, they are less distracting
btrem
at
2025-05-08 21:09
-
And the suggestion to use unicode superscript numbers. FWIW, those numbers are too small to read with my crap eyesight
btrem
at
2025-05-08 21:08
-
Might be kicking a hornet's nest, but here goes. Re: https://indieweb.org/footnote that [tantek] posted yesterday, I'm a bit skeptical of the claims and advice. For example, "ASCII footnotes like [1] are easier to type, yet when inline in prose, can be distracting to readers." Is there any evidence that it's distracting to readers
btrem
at
2025-05-08 21:07
-
edited /User:Kaja.sknebel.net/upcoming-popups (-10) "update from https://events.indieweb.org/tag/popup
Loqi
at
2025-05-08 21:03
Sort by:
Filter results by:
Tag
Query took 0.11s.
Search tips
- Exclusion
- +foo -bar
- Logical OR
- foo OR bar
- Exact phrase
- "foo bar"
- Partial words
- foo*
- Particular fields only
- title:foo
- domain:example.org
- nick:somebody
- after:2016-11-23
- before:2016-11-23
- date:2016-11-23