From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 11:18:27 +0100 Message-ID: <87k2zsso3w.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d04780.cb58460a.5243.2603@mx.google.com> <87h9v3li8t.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d078ff.b044440a.06ec.3cf6@mx.google.com> <87d25rkmag.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d1bc7b.c57d440a.3c5d.2dca@mx.google.com> <87vbjh284z.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87mw4tk4m7.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87oap7z664.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87fvaibr3k.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87y4o9s5qc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d25kpxap.fsf@pank.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52933) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOvf-00020w-FY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 05:17:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOva-0006G2-E0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 05:17:27 -0500 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:53546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOva-0006Fo-4o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 05:17:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d25kpxap.fsf@pank.eu> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:28:14 +0100") 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: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Rasmus writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: > >> Using the example from Erik Hetzner in the same thread, what about: >> >> 1. [cite:@item1] says blah. >> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah. > > Why is "p." stripped here? I don't understand. Anyway, I now suggest [@item1] and [@item1 p. 30] >> 3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah. >> 4. [cite:@item1: -@item2 p. 30; see also @item3] says blah. > > If item{1,2} have the same author biblatex[-chicago?] is smart enough to > compress it to "author (year1, year2)". So this example seems like a > downgrade if "-" is required to get the suggested output. [@item1 -@item2 p. 30] Downgrade is a bit strong. >> 5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3]. > > Why is chap. *not* stripped here? I do not understand either. > Where does suffix and locator end here. E.g. what is the output of > > [cite:: @item1 33, pp. 35-37, and nowhere else]. [cite: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and nowhere else] suffix and locator are merged (AFAIU, in practice, there is no distinction between locator and suffix): "pp. 33, 35-37, and nowehere else". >> 9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else]. > > How do I know this is a suffix? Is locator a regexp like > \`[p\.0-9 ]+? See above. > What is [cite:@K s. 12] or [cite:@K side.? 12]? See above. > What if I need several text cite keys. Say @K{1,2} is the same author A, > and @K3 is B. Then [cite:@K1,@K2,@K3] should/could be something like > A (Y1, Y2), and B (Y3). How do I express this? Since A and B do not appear in the same parenthesis, two citations are needed: [@K1 -@K2], and [@K3] > Some comments. > > 1. Am I supposed to distinguish between a text citations and parenthesis > citation based on a single ":"? That's hard. Why not distinguish > based on the initial label? E.g. {textcite, parentcite} or {citet, > citep}. In fact, you're right, we don't need the colon, hence my other proposal. > 2. The idea of locator /and/ suffix is confusing. The fact that your > examples suggest seemingly random dropping of data from locator makes > me want to avoid it even more. It's a 'can of worms' to use a > frequently emerging expression from this list. Again, there's no real need to extract a locator. At least, not at the parser level. > 3. This is almost full circle. The proposal above seems no better (and > IMO worse) than e.g. the generalized links that Tom suggested, e.g. > [TYPE: KEY :pre PRE :post SUF] or [TYPE: PRE @KEY POST]. > Or [[TYPE: KEY :pre PRE :post SUF]] or [[TYPE: PRE @KEY POST]]. In [type: KEY :pre PRE :post SUF], PRE comes after KEY, which impedes readability, IMO. Double brackets are link syntax: there will be conflict if TYPE belongs to `org-link-types'. > 5. . . . Yet I still don't know how to get A1 (PRE Y2) with the above. > Is the benchmark correct? You can't. Is this needed? > If parsing speed is key here I think that > [citet: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2] and [citep: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2] > are clearer solutions. But this is clearly closer to a LaTeX than > pandoc. If "A1 (PRE Y2)" is really needed, then yes, I think that's good enough. Otherwise I think [@k1] is terse and nice. Regards,