From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:58:12 +0100 Message-ID: <87oap4sp1n.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50462) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKOc2-00048I-PE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:57:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKObz-0000hU-IT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:57:10 -0500 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::198]:43376) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKObz-0000fU-CW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:57:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Richard Lawrence's message of "Sat, 7 Feb 2015 18:46:16 -0800") 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: Richard Lawrence Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Richard Lawrence writes: > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > >> What about the following set? >> >> bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through >> subscript superscript underline superscript > > That would work fine for me in prefixes and suffixes. Fair enough. > I guess I could live with this, but to be honest, I much prefer the > Pandoc way. Actually, there is another, shorter possibility: - in-text citation [KEY] or [KEY suffix] [@item1] or [@item1 p. 30] or [@item1 p. 30, with suffix] - out-text citation [cite: prefix? key suffix?; prefix2? key2 suffix2? ...] [cite: see @item1 p. 34-35] or [cite: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and nowhere else] or [cite: -@item1 p. 44] or even [cite: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3] IMO it is quite readable. > The Pandoc syntax has a nice congruence between the source file and > the output: if a cite key is inside the brackets in the source, the > reference is inside the brackets in the output, and if it's outside in > the source, it's outside in the output. This convention seems > natural, easy to remember, and very readable -- at least if, like me > (and I would guess many others), you use author names in cite keys. This can be partly (i.e. visually) solved with overlays, e.g., you write [@item1: p. 30] and you see @item1 (p. 30) in the buffer. IMO, this is overkill, though. > So as an author, I prefer the Pandoc way, but I understand there are > other considerations. If we must have the tag for performance > reasons, I would prefer using two different tags to represent the two > cases; I suggest borrowing (from LaTeX's natbib package) "citet" for > in-text and "citep" for bracketed citations , but I don't really care > as long as they're easy to type, and it's easy to change one to the > other. IMO, my current proposal is clearer. Also, you can switch to in-text to out-text (or the other way) just by adding (or removing) cite: at the beginning of the citation. Regards,