From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye)
Subject: Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:57:44 -1000
Message-ID: <m2iof3q11j.fsf@tsdye.com>
References: <87k2zjnc0e.fsf@berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57216)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tsd@tsdye.com>) id 1YMqLb-0006eR-7Q
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:58:23 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tsd@tsdye.com>) id 1YMqLW-0007jt-7C
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:58:19 -0500
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.20.122]:52605)
	by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <tsd@tsdye.com>)
	id 1YMqLV-0007fA-WE
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:58:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87k2zjnc0e.fsf@berkeley.edu> (Richard Lawrence's message of
	"Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:29:05 -0800")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:

> I welcome feedback, comments, criticisms, and objections on any point.
> However, since we've already had a long discussion about this, I
> respectfully request that we try to keep this thread focused.  To that
> end, I suggest:
>
>   1) If you have criticisms or objections, please try to indicate
>      whether you think they are `substantive' (e.g., you see a problem
>      that would prevent you from using this syntax, or prevent Org from
>      implementing it) or not (e.g., you would prefer a slightly
>      different but equivalent way of expressing something).
>
>   2) If you wish to express an opinion about the proposal without
>      offering further comments, let us know by just replying with +1
>      (meaning you'd like to see this syntax, or something reasonably
>      similar to it, be adopted), 0, or -1 (meaning you'd prefer not to
>      see this syntax or anything similar to it adopted).

0

A syntax that relegates citation commands to an extension that might not
export properly in future versions of Org mode isn't useful in my work.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com