On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:30 AM John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 5:07 PM John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I was looking into using latex commands as styles in org-cite, e.g.
>> >>
>> >> [cite/citet:@key]. That example works fine, but [cite/citet*:@key] is
>> not allowed. Could that be allowed?
>> >
>> > I have no insight into the restriction, but I hope it can be removed.
>>
>> I do like the proposal in general, but I can see a potential issue for
>> users. Constructs like "word*:" can be recognised as a valid bold
>> emphasis ending. For example:
>>
>> >>> Some *bold emphasis with reference [cite/citet*:@key] will end
>> >>> at "citet*", but not here*.
>>
>
> That is a fair point, and also an issue with links that have * in them
> (which is also already allowed). I can't say it has ever been reported as
> an issue though.
>
>>
>> Note that inserting zero-width space will not only be awkward here, but
>> also breaks parser: e.g. [cite/cite<zwspace>t:@key] is not currently
>> recognised as a citation.
>
>
> A less awkward solution (IMO) would be to use an entity like ⋆.  It is
> straightforward to add that to the org-element-citation-prefix-re. Then I
> see something like this.
>
> [image: image.png]
> I don't know how difficult it would be to improve the emphasis handling,
> it seems like the start/end markers should not cross some element
> boundaries.
>

So Ihor, is there any problem with John's proposed change here?

Seems sensible to me.

Bruce



>
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Ihor
>>
>