Footnotes in WYSIWYG editor

I’m using version 1.0.201 on Windows 10

When you create a footnote in md editor pane, like


then do some editing in the wysiwyg editor and go back to plain md editor, you get this back instead

* * *

1.  note [↩︎](#fnref1) 

It looks more or less the same when exported, but I don’t like losing the explicit footnote names I was using. It may be a known thing (WYSIWYG editor is still in early stage), but it’s a little annoying. Is there any plan to preserve the md better? You expect a WYSIWYG editor to do WYSIWYG editing, i.e. modify the md relating to the portion of the document you’re editing, but not to mess with the md code throughout the whole document, even portions you didn’t touch while using the WYSIWYG editor (I just changed a few characters in a document and got my 30+ footnotes reformatted).

There’s unfortunately no plans to support non-standard Markdown in the WYSIWYG editor, which is why we indicate in the plugin page which plugin is compatible or not. Essentially if you want to use advanced Markdown features you need to use the Markdown editor.

I’ve found this, after manually modifying the footnote ref in wysiwyg mode. I usually don’t use it.
“sup” style is defined in userstyle.css

blah blah [footnote]

blah blah <sup>[\[footnote\]](#fn1)</sup>

1. Here the footnote [↩︎](#fnref1)

I was wondering if there were now any plans to allow footnotes in the WYSIWYG editor, as the current implementation has a number of serious issues!

Firstly, the problem mentioned by @betternote above, and the conversion is one-way: a single errant edit in the WYSIWYG editor permanently formats all the footnotes as above.

A second problem compounds this: if you add more inline footnotes after one round trip to the WYSIWYG editor, they are numbered entirely separately to the first batch!

Finally, under some circumstances, consecutive inline footnotes are detected as an area of superscript.

This makes footnote use very challenging for anything other than very short notes.

I've included an example of the various problems below. Any improvement on this would be hugely appreciated. Thanks!

Write in Markdown editor:

I like Joplin^[First footnote] because it is nice^[Last footnote].

Which demonstrates the problem I noted above about superscript:


Go to the WYSIWYG editor and add a word, then return to Markdown:

I like Joplin<sup>[\[1\]](#fn1)</sup> because it is very nice<sup>[\[2\]](#fn2)</sup>.

* * *

1.  First footnote [↩︎](#fnref1)
2.  Last footnote [↩︎](#fnref2)

Add a third footnote:

I like Joplin<sup>[\[1\]](#fn1)</sup> because it^[Extra footnote!] is very nice<sup>[\[2\]](#fn2)</sup>.

* * *

1.  First footnote [↩︎](#fnref1)
2.  Last footnote [↩︎](#fnref2)

Make a small edit in the WYSIWYG editor and return to Markdown, resulting in a new, independently numbered footnotes section which is out of order:

I like Joplin<sup>[\[1\]](#fn1)</sup> because it<sup>[\[1\]](#fn1)</sup> is very nice<sup>[\[2\]](#fn2)</sup>.

* * *

1.  First footnote [↩︎](#fnref1)
2.  Last footnote [↩︎](#fnref2)

* * *

1.  Extra footnote! [↩︎](#fnref1)