Combining reference links with footnotes produces unexpected effects

[v1kn]

pandoc 1.19.1
Compiled with pandoc-types 1.17.0.4, texmath 0.9, highlighting-kate 0.6.3

Using recent The Guardian article as a sample text: source

Facebook [halted the use of the shared user data][06][^L6] for advertising
purposes in November after [pressure from the pan-European data protection
agency group][07][^L7] Article 29 Working Party in October. The European
commission then filed charges against Facebook for providing “misleading”
information in the run-up to the [social network’s acquisition of messaging
service WhatsApp][08][^L8], following its data-sharing change.

[06]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/facebook-halts-use-of-whatsapp-data-for-advertising-in-europe
[^L6]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/facebook-halts-use-of-whatsapp-data-for-advertising-in-europe
[07]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/whatsapp-pause-sharing-user-data-facebook-european-privacy-regulators-yahoo
[^L7]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/whatsapp-pause-sharing-user-data-facebook-european-privacy-regulators-yahoo
[08]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/19/facebook-buys-whatsapp-16bn-deal
[^L8]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/19/facebook-buys-whatsapp-16bn-deal

result: imgur

additional comments:

• I believe I have all the necessary extensions in the pandoc invocation
• I use extensively vim's gw to wrap text to 80 chars, not sure if this has any influence
• rationale for using both reference links and footnotes: links are better for html, footnotes for pdf, both can make one md file more universal

[jgm]

If you put blank lines between your reference definitinos and your footnote definitions, it will work. This could be documented better, but I'm not sure it's a bug.

[v1kn]

Indeed separating link and footnotes definitions with one blank line fixes the output.

A warning concerning this behavior in each extension's section would be great.