From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:19:37 +0100
Message-ID: <87mw4bpaiu.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <87k2zjnc0e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <m2iof3q11j.fsf@tsdye.com>
	<87bnkvm8la.fsf@berkeley.edu> <m21tlrot9o.fsf@tsdye.com>
	<87zj8co3se.fsf@berkeley.edu> <m2iof0gdnc.fsf@tsdye.com>
	<87ioezooi2.fsf@berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41278)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1YO5SS-0002LO-Re
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:18:37 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1YO5SP-0001W9-AZ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:18:32 -0500
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:55245)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1YO5SP-0001Vj-4y
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:18:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87ioezooi2.fsf@berkeley.edu> (Richard Lawrence's message of
	"Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:03:01 -0800")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:

> Actually, your post has convinced me that it may be worth allowing some
> explicit name for a type in the [cite: ...] part of the syntax, although
> I am still leery about what this would mean for non-LaTeX backends.

Each back-end can decide to use it or simply ignore it. Also [cite:...]
should be equivalent to [cite:default: ...], for some value of "default"
decided by the target back-end.

> I did not appreciate before that switching from one type to another is
> something you probably want to be able to do really easily, like with
> query-replace, even if you are making use of the other parts of the
> syntax to express distinctions like in-text vs. parenthetical
> citations.
>
> So, two questions for the group:
>
> 1) Is it worth allowing a name for a user-defined type in the [cite: ...]
> part, or is it OK to confine user-defined types to the second part
> (like: [cite: ...] %%(:type foo) or [cite: ...]{:type foo})?

Expecting subtype in the header doesn't add a limitation to pre or post
text.

Moreover [cite: ...]{...} syntax really makes sense if it is the
equivalent to #+attr_... keywords, so we can generalize it to links. As
a consequence, {...} should include a reference to back-end. E.g.,

  [cite:...]{latex :color pink}

> 2) If a user-defined type can go in the [cite: ...] part, where should
> it go?  Nicolas has suggested:
>
>   [cite:subtype ...]
>
> or 
>
>   [cite:subtype: ...]
>
> I would personally (aesthetically, don't ask me why) prefer:
>
>   [cite/subtype: ...]
>
> or
>
>   [cite|subtype: ...]
>
> But maybe there are other options I haven't thought of.

I'm fine with any of these, although the latter looks less nice to me.


Regards,