From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Nobis Subject: Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:00:40 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87k2zjnc0e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87bnkvm8la.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87zj8co3se.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87ioezooi2.fsf@berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49627) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YO0V4-0003At-At for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:00:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YO0V0-00081j-Vp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:00:54 -0500 Received: from basilikum.nobis-admin.de ([89.238.71.130]:47253) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YO0V0-00081J-Mf for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 04:00:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by basilikum.nobis-admin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62347E01F0 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:00:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from basilikum.nobis-admin.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basilikum.nobis-admin.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Su64TT1F8BWY for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:00:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from karotte.fritz.box (unknown [IPv6:2001:4dd0:fb8a:0:c147:3281:6f36:5646]) by basilikum.nobis-admin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:00:41 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87ioezooi2.fsf@berkeley.edu> (Richard Lawrence's message of "Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:03:01 -0800") 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 Richard Lawrence writes: > 1) Is it worth allowing a name for a user-defined type in the [cite: > ...] part, or is it OK to confine user-defined types to the second > part (like: [cite: ...] %%(:type foo) or [cite: ...]{:type foo})? IMHO it is better to have such an important part of the citation in a prominent position, therefore I'm in favour of Nicolas suggestion of [cite:subtype: ...]{backend options} with the four variations for "cite" (i.e. "[cite:...]", "[Cite:...]", "[(cite):...]", and "[(Cite):...]"). The drawback is that now subtype is hard or even impossible to vary for different backends. Therefore I would suggest that either org has to define the allowed values of subtype or else we should define that subtype has to be handled by the user (e.g. for use in private filter functions) and is out of the scope of org (maybe this would be a good place of extensions like org-ref to plug in their machinery). > 2) If a user-defined type can go in the [cite: ...] part, where should > it go? > [cite:subtype ...] > [cite:subtype: ...] > [cite/subtype: ...] > [cite|subtype: ...] I favor [cite:subtype: ...] a very tiny bit over the other variants. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.