On Mar 3, 2015 3:43 AM, "Nicolas Goaziou" <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>
> Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> >> To support multi cites, we must first decide how the parsed will
present
> >> information, i.e., what are the properties in the following case
> >>
> >>   [cite:pre; pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2; post]
> >
> > I was thinking that this should yield a citation object with a
structure like:
> >
> > ('citation ...
> >   :common-prefix pre
> >   :common-suffix post
> >   :references ((:prefix pre1
> >                 :key "k1"
> >                 :suffix post1 ...)
> >                (:prefix pre2
> >                 :key "k2"
> >                 :suffix post2 ...))
> >   ...)
> >
> > Would that work?
>
> Yes. I find it better than "entries/entry" as discussed with Rasmus.
> I'll implement it in a few days.
>
> > Oh, I did not realize there were outstanding issues with this.  I
> > remember Rasmus not liking `&'.  I'm fine with changing it, though I
> > cannot think of a better symbol.  Does someone think we should not have
> > a way of indicating that a reference should produce a full bibliography
> > entry?  Or that we should indicate it in some other way?
>
> AFAIC, I don't think a dedicated symbol is useful. It can be implemented
> through subtypes/properties. Besides LaTeX, could other back-end provide
> that feature anyway?
>

I have done this with zotxt for HTML and odt export, so it should be
possible. I personally really like this, as I have a personal use case
(course syllabi) where I need this all the time. But I may be unusual in
this.

Matt
> I have no opinion about the :suppress-author symbol.
>
>
> Regards,
>