From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexis Subject: Re: Citation syntax and ODT Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:26:04 +1100 Message-ID: <8761asng6r.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87zj85s1vf.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54EAC71A.6080502@gmail.com> <87twycsg5a.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54EB6D6F.7060005@gmail.com> <87fv9wrz0s.fsf@berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42153) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQ68U-0002Rr-NB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:26:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQ68R-0004hJ-G9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:26:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]:39251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQ68R-0004hE-8X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:26:11 -0500 Received: by pablf10 with SMTP id lf10so32622646pab.6 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:26:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ppp118-209-226-212.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net. [118.209.226.212]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qv9sm37629924pab.27.2015.02.23.19.26.08 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:26:09 -0800 (PST) In-reply-to: <87fv9wrz0s.fsf@berkeley.edu> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 2015-02-24T10:25:39+1100, Richard Lawrence said: RL> Vaidheeswaran C writes: >>> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the >>> fact that the citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, >>> and that it has a prefix and suffix, should be represented in >>> the output. >> >> 1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of >> in-text or parenthetical already chosen for you? Stated other >> way, is the choice between parenthetical or in-text >> document-wide or is it that one could intermix the two styles >> in the same document. RL> These could be intermixed in the same document. The RL> document-level style determines how each type ultimately looks, RL> but the choice of style is (mostly) independent of using RL> parenthetical vs. in-text citations. Fwiw, it seems to me that there might be some confusion here arising from two separate usages of the word 'style': (a) 'style' to mean "writing style", i.e. which words are used, how they're put together, etc. For example, "Plain English". (b) 'style' to mean "presentation style", i.e. how words, symbols, glyphs etc. are presented visually or (for vision-impaired people) aurally. For example, the sort of things specified by Cascading Style Sheets. Thus, the citation 'style' can be independent of the presentation style used for that citation style. For examle, one might have a citation style like: [Smith 2001] which in certain contexts is expected to have a presentation style of 'bolded'. So what i understand Vaidheeswaran to be asking is: Please don't code things such that presentation style is /necessarily/ carried along with citation style. Make it so that exporting a document faithfully reproduces the citation style in the target format, but don't /force/ the presentation style used in the source format for citation style to be the presentation style used in the destination format. Vaidheeswaran, is that correct? Alexis.