From: "András Simonyi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Nicolas Goaziou <email@example.com> Cc: tumashu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, emacs-orgmode <email@example.com>, John Kitchin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Should wip-cite branch be merged to master? Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:17:47 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Dear All, thanks for bringing this up. I definitely agree that it'd be too early to merge the wip-cite branch. In fact, having added (experimental) support for it in citeproc-org I've been planning to propose some changes/extensions to the syntax but I wanted to wait until citeproc-org and citeproc-el become available as MELPA packages which still isn't the case (citeproc-el is already there but citeproc-org still needs some work before I can submit it). Anyhow, since the topic has come up, here is how I see the situation (sorry for the length): From the citeproc-el/CSL point of view, the current syntax is perfect with the notable exception of the provided citation commands. Currently only `cite' and `(cite)' are supported, where the latter seems to be intended to provide the parenthetical version of a basic citation, e.g. in an author-date style `cite' would produce something like `Smith 2018` while `(cite)' `(Smith 2018)'. Now I think that for author-date styles `cite' should produce the parenthetical version and that `(cite)' probably shouldn't be among the commands at all. The main reason is that most citation processors (biblatex, CSL processors etc.) support not only author-date citation styles but footnote-based ones as well, and the concept of a `parenthetical citation' doesn't really make sense for the latter. A more abstract characterization which is applicable to all styles is that normally references are not part of the main text, they are set off either by brackets or in a note. Since this is the most frequent, basic form, I think this the one which should be produced by the `cite' syntax, that is, when used in normal text `cite' should produce something like `(Smith 2018)' for author-date styles and a note with the reference for note styles. In addition to `cite', the following additional variants would be very useful, and would probably cover the majority of use-cases: - "bare cite": the same as cite, but doesn't separate the reference from the main text (no brackets/note); - "suppress author": removes the author's name from the citation. - "textual cite": includes the author's name in the main text but sets off the rest of the citation. A proposal for the syntax of the additional forms: bare cite could be indicated by a `-' suffix, suppress author by a `*' and textual cite by a `t' resulting in the variants | command | result in author-date styles | |---------------+------------------------------| | cite | (Smith 2017) | | citet | Smith (2017) | | cite- | Smith 2017 | | cite* | (2017) | | cite*-/cite-* | 2017 | (omitting some combinatorial possibilities that don't make practical sense). It would be a nice extra to also provide commands for adding an item to the list of references without actually citing it (`nocite' command), and for adding literal cites (that provide the full text of the citation, and whose sole function is to let the processor know that a citation occurred at a certain location) but these are obviously not so important as the ones in the above table. The citeproc-el wiki contains a bit more information about this proposal: https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-el/wiki/Citation-types-and-commands I'd be glad to hear your views regarding these issues. best regards, András >> There is a package which support wip-cite: >> https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-org, should wip-cite >> branch be merged to master now? > Merging wip-cite branch with master, and integration of citeproc-org > into Org core, could be discussed with the author of the library, and, > of course, with anyone interested in using the @cite syntax. For > example, I need to know if that syntax, along with citeproc-org, covers > enough use-cases for citations, if it brings more value than using, > e.g., Org Ref, which already exists, how it could be improved, etc. > I have the feeling that it is a bit early for Org 9.2. Anyway, I'm > Cc'ing András and John for their opinion about it. I'd love to hear from > everyone involved in the last round of discussion about the subject, > too. > Regards, > -- > Nicolas Goaziou
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-22 18:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-04-20 23:01 tumashu 2018-04-21 7:26 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2018-04-21 8:43 ` Christian Moe 2018-04-22 18:17 ` András Simonyi [this message] 2018-04-23 19:42 ` John Kitchin 2018-04-25 19:19 ` Richard Lawrence 2018-04-26 23:34 ` Bastien 2018-04-27 21:07 ` András Simonyi 2018-04-27 23:34 ` Nicolas Goaziou
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: https://www.orgmode.org/ * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: Should wip-cite branch be merged to master?' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).