From: "András Simonyi" <simonyi@all.hu>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: tumashu <tumashu@163.com>, emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>,
John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Should wip-cite branch be merged to master?
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:17:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87in8jaywk.fsf@all.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871sf9f2ak.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
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 \
--in-reply-to=87in8jaywk.fsf@all.hu \
--to=simonyi@all.hu \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu \
--cc=mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr \
--cc=tumashu@163.com \
--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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).