From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Lawrence Subject: Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:12:53 -0800 Message-ID: <87pp94t0sq.fsf@berkeley.edu> References: <87k2zjnc0e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87bnkvm8la.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87zj8co3se.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87ioezooi2.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87mw4bpaiu.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <8761aznpiq.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87twyjnh0r.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oaopx24e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87k2zd4f3w.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87egpkv8g9.fsf@berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60142) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YP0Vl-0000kX-Kz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:13:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YP0Vg-0007eB-Lr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:13:45 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39334) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YP0Vg-0007cy-FH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:13:40 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YP0Vd-0002gN-T7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:13:38 +0100 Received: from c-67-169-117-151.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([67.169.117.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:13:37 +0100 Received: from richard.lawrence by c-67-169-117-151.hsd1.ca.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 04:13:37 +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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Samuel, Samuel Wales writes: > basically, i am concerned about syntax creep in the big picture and > its downstream consequences. for example, it's more efficient to > support, and for the user to remember, a single general syntax than a > whole bunch of special syntaxes. In general, I share your point of view here, which is one reason why I proposed the s-expression part of the syntax for citations. I still like that idea, and I think Nicolas is right that it would be good to extend it to other sorts of objects in Org. You're right that consistency in that syntax would be a good thing. Moreover, Org already has syntax that looks a lot like plists in #+ATTR_BACKEND lines and in Babel source block headers, so it seems natural to adopt something like it for other sorts of objects. I think that is the right way to go, both from the perspective of consistency and from the perspective of expressiveness. I guess the rejoinder to all this, though, is that this point of view can be taken too far. I am glad, for example, that Org uses different syntax for delimiting source blocks and delimiting emphasized text. Insisting on syntactic consistency there would give you something like HTML...and I am glad that writing Org is not like writing HTML. (Likewise, I will be glad when we have a syntax specially-designed for writing citations, even if it looks nothing like the syntax other things.) So I think the right question is: what is the correct range of application for a uniform syntax for user-specifiable extensions, for citations or otherwise? I don't know the answer to that, but `properties of existing objects' seems like a good start. This needs more thought, in another thread, but thank you for reminding us to keep it in mind. Best, Richard