From: Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Citations, continued
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 11:50:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vbjcoewx.fsf@gmx.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 87k2zsso3w.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr
Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply. A very colorful (in Gnus at least) reply
follows.
>>> 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
This is what I'm talking about:
>>> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>> ... ^^^^
>>> 2. Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>>> ^^^
>>> 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.
If I have to think about the /formatting/ out output rather than the
/contents/ downgrade is not too strong (IMO). In the example above, why
not [@item1 @item2 p. 30]?
Another issue is that it's not transpose-words safe. E.g. this output
seems bad: [-@k1 @k2 30] => Y1 A2 (Y2, 30).
>>> 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.
Compare to example 1 where p. is stripped. Here chap. is /not/ stripped.
>>> 5. A citation group (see Doe 2005, 34–35; also Doe and Roe 2007, chap. 3).
>> 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".
But in your previous examples data is stripped from the locator. If
there's no difference I think it would be better to not talk about this
locator 'cause it's extremely confusing.
>>> 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.
See also above. From you explanation I would guess that at least these
two examples are wrong. Is that correct?
>>> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>> 2. Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>>> 3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>>> 3. Doe (2005, 30, with suffix) says blah.
>> 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]
This is a minor downgrade from biblatex. The year thing is worse.
>> 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.
This is much better.
>> 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.
Let's stop talking about this locator then. It appears nowhere else in
LaTeX or Org documentation.
>> 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?
It's not unheard of. I have used it in the past. In LaTeX it's something like:
\citet[C]{k} → A (Y, C)
\citet[B][]{k} → A (B, Y)
\citet[B][C]{k} → A (B, Y, C)
>> 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.
It's nice. @k1 / [pre @k1 post] for text and (pre @k1 post) for
parentheses expressions is nicer, but that's details. I trust your
judgment on the technical merit of one idea versus the next.
Thanks,
Rasmus
--
El Rey ha muerto. ¡Larga vida al Rey!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-08 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 104+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-31 18:26 Citations, continued Richard Lawrence
2015-01-31 18:42 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-01 22:07 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-02 13:52 ` Rasmus
2015-02-02 17:25 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-02 18:09 ` Rasmus
2015-02-02 15:45 ` Erik Hetzner
2015-02-01 22:06 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-02 1:41 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-02 4:43 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-02 13:56 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-02 18:11 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-02 19:38 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-02 19:51 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-02 22:47 ` Rasmus
2015-02-03 0:54 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-03 1:36 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-02 14:17 ` Rasmus
2015-02-02 16:58 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-02 14:07 ` Rasmus
2015-02-02 13:51 ` Rasmus
2015-02-02 15:09 ` Matt Price
2015-02-02 18:02 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-02 19:55 ` Rasmus
2015-02-03 1:56 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-03 2:08 ` Vikas Rawal
2015-02-03 10:55 ` Rasmus
2015-02-04 10:35 ` Julian M. Burgos
2015-02-04 16:34 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-03 10:35 ` Rasmus
2015-02-03 12:00 ` Eric S Fraga
2015-02-03 16:27 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-03 17:25 ` Eric S Fraga
2015-02-03 3:58 ` Erik Hetzner
2015-02-03 4:41 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-03 7:30 ` Erik Hetzner
2015-02-03 16:11 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-04 6:30 ` Erik Hetzner
2015-02-04 12:06 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-04 16:45 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-06 10:27 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-06 22:41 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-07 22:43 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-08 2:46 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-08 9:46 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-08 17:09 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-08 22:23 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-09 8:46 ` e.fraga
2015-02-09 10:50 ` Rasmus
2015-02-09 11:20 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-09 11:37 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 9:06 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-09 15:09 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-10 8:55 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-10 9:22 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 9:41 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-10 10:01 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 15:32 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-10 1:50 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-09 17:46 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-09 20:13 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 1:32 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-10 4:04 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-10 5:23 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-10 6:20 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-08 9:58 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-08 17:18 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-08 18:18 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-08 9:28 ` Rasmus
2015-02-08 10:18 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-08 10:50 ` Rasmus [this message]
2015-02-08 12:36 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-08 13:40 ` Rasmus
2015-02-08 16:11 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-09 10:02 ` Rasmus
2015-02-08 17:02 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-08 17:29 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 1:54 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-10 8:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-10 9:20 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 10:05 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2015-02-10 10:36 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 10:53 ` Andreas Leha
2015-02-10 15:03 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-10 15:54 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 16:14 ` John Kitchin
2015-02-10 16:22 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-10 16:44 ` Stefan Nobis
2015-02-11 2:07 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-11 10:19 ` Stefan Nobis
2015-02-11 16:51 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-13 2:31 ` Matt Price
2015-02-11 10:47 ` Aaron Ecay
2015-02-11 11:32 ` Rasmus
2015-02-10 16:04 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-11 2:10 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-11 2:48 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-11 3:53 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-02-06 23:37 ` Rasmus
2015-02-06 23:16 ` Rasmus
2015-02-04 17:44 ` Erik Hetzner
2015-02-04 15:59 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-02-04 17:58 ` Erik Hetzner
2015-02-04 19:24 ` Richard Lawrence
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87vbjcoewx.fsf@gmx.us \
--to=rasmus@gmx.us \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).