From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Moe Subject: Re: Should wip-cite branch be merged to master? Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:43:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87r2n9kkzp.fsf@christianmoe.com> References: <29b94436.a1e.162e54aa7c1.Coremail.tumashu@163.com> <871sf9f2ak.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38718) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f9orO-0003EP-BH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:31:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f9orL-00076q-78 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:31:10 -0400 Received: from mailer-211-194.hitrost.net ([91.185.211.194]:56427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f9orL-00072t-0t for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:31:07 -0400 In-reply-to: <871sf9f2ak.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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" To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: tumashu , emacs-orgmode , Simonyi =?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A1s?= , John Kitchin I have no opinion on whether it's time for a merge or not, but please don't wait up for me. Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I also remember that Christian Moe suggested an alternate syntax for > citations. He might want to point out what is missing from @cite syntax > and if he still prefers his idea. I did, but my suggestions did not get any traction back when a native citation syntax was first being discussed on the list. Regrettably, I have not managed to follow up my proposal properly, then or now -- not even to the point of updating my own sample code after a Zotero development broke it last year -- and I probably won't in the foreseeable near future. So I wouldn't want to hold back a community-developed solution on account that I had a different idea. My proposal was for a different approach (parsing a "natural-looking" citation syntax like (Smith 1990: p.3)), which I thought could be both more user-friendly and more aesthetically pleasing in plain text. It was not for improvements to the @cite syntax, so I don't actually know what is missing from the latter, if anything. I was very excited about the citeproc contributon, but I have not found the time to test it out.