From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:58:44 +0100 Message-ID: <877fvba32j.fsf@gmx.us> References: <87k2zjnc0e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87bnkvm8la.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87zj8co3se.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87ioezooi2.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87mw4bpaiu.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <8761aznpiq.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87twyjnh0r.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oaopx24e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87k2zd4f3w.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87egpkv8g9.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87a908qrmm.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41692) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YP8hw-0001ft-EH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 06:58:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YP8hs-0004yU-EX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 06:58:52 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:55231) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YP8hs-0004yG-4g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 06:58:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Samuel Wales's message of "Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:33:59 -0700") 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: samologist@gmail.com Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Samuel, Samuel Wales writes: > On 2/20/15, Rasmus wrote: >> I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to n= ot >> have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to >> avoid this situation: >> >> i just think the syntax we design should, if possible, be so general >> that it can be used for future features, *including 100% unrelated >> features*, and also for future subfeatures of any feature, including >> citations. > > this means that we are not thinking along the same lines. > > what i am describing is what i described years ago in several posts. > it was mentioned recently [and on john's blog], then discussion went > back to citation-specific syntax. As I said an arbitrary [fun: arg :key val] is great. It might solve what I (perhaps unfairly) dubbed the "link-morass", since it has no description. > i am not proposing hijacking existing syntax; i am proposing the > opposite. i am proposing a single, new, unambiguous syntax. e.g. > > $[feature args... :key value ...] > ... > $[color-start "red"]red$[color-end "red"] ^^^ This is already supported via a macros (for export at least): {{{color-start red, red}}} #+MACRO: color-start @@html:$2 [i am just making this up as i go along to give you the general idea.] > > notice how we did not need to invent new syntax! I sympathize with the idea. Surely (some years ago I *wanted* to write the generalized "link", but lacked time and skillz). But citations is a different beast and fixed syntax is what is needed. >>> to me, that means plist or similar. >> >> A lambda (that is a cite-subtype) is =E2=88=9E more customizable than a = plist. > > i don't think i'd favor anything that must eval. security issues, > among other things. I too worry about the NSA backdoors in self-insert-command. . . If you don't allow a generalized link to follow a user-specified =CE=BBs th= en you don't have a flexible syntax that you expressed desire for above. You'd still have to wait for somebody "upstream" to develop [color-start:=E2=8B=AF]. >> A generalization of, say macros and link which look like [FUN: :key valu= e] >> or [FUN: arg]{:key value} may be appropriate, but it's something >> different from the discussion at hand. > > i'm not sure i am explaining my point well here. You are. I just don't agree citation support should be generalized to a more abstract level at this point. What Org desperately needs in terms of reproducible, scientific writing is a rigorous, standard syntax. =E2=80=94Rasmus --=20 Dung makes an excellent fertilizer