From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Kitchin Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:46:15 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d04780.cb58460a.5243.2603@mx.google.com> <87h9v3li8t.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d078ff.b044440a.06ec.3cf6@mx.google.com> <87d25rkmag.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d1bc7b.c57d440a.3c5d.2dca@mx.google.com> <87vbjh284z.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87mw4tk4m7.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87oap7z664.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87fvaibr3k.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87y4o9s5qc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKORd-0001yF-Kq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:46:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKORY-0006Oe-TT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:46:25 -0500 Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.105.204]:58192) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKORY-0006OQ-Ou for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 04:46:20 -0500 In-reply-to: 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: Richard Lawrence Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" My only concern is that it remains possible to support this relatively full set of citation options on export: (defcustom org-ref-cite-types '("cite" "nocite" ;; the default latex cite commands ;; natbib cite commands, http://ctan.unixbrain.com/macros/latex/contrib/natbib/natnotes.pdf "citet" "citet*" "citep" "citep*" "citealt" "citealt*" "citealp" "citealp*" "citenum" "citetext" "citeauthor" "citeauthor*" "citeyear" "citeyear*" "Citet" "Citep" "Citealt" "Citealp" "Citeauthor" ;; biblatex commands ;; http://ctan.mirrorcatalogs.com/macros/latex/contrib/biblatex/doc/biblatex.pdf "Cite" "parencite" "Parencite" "footcite" "footcitetext" "textcite" "Textcite" "smartcite" "Smartcite" "cite*" "parencite*" "supercite" "autocite" "Autocite" "autocite*" "Autocite*" "Citeauthor*" "citetitle" "citetitle*" "citedate" "citedate*" "citeurl" "fullcite" "footfullcite" ;; "volcite" "Volcite" cannot support the syntax "notecite" "Notecite" "pnotecite" "Pnotecite" "fnotecite" ;; multicites. Very limited support for these. "cites" "Cites" "parencites" "Parencites" "footcites" "footcitetexts" "smartcites" "Smartcites" "textcites" "Textcites" "supercites" "autocites" "Autocites" ;; for the bibentry package "bibentry" ) "List of citation types known in org-ref" :type '(repeat :tag "List of citation types" string) :group 'org-ref) which we are currently able to do. I never type any of those in, org-ref does it automatically from a key selection tool. >From a user point of view, these to me look almost identical to link syntax, which could be confusing. [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY] [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS] I don't see the payoff in adding it. you can already have those as links, and export to pandoc syntac trivial in the first case. The payoff only comes from item 4 in the list below, with a nested citation, which I have never seen in the wild in scientific publications. Perhaps it is more common in other fields. I don't personally find the pandoc notation easier to understand, eg [@item] and [-@item] vs \cite{item} and \citeauthor{item} The congruence you mention is not relevant for superscripted references, there are no brackets or parentheses in that case. Richard Lawrence writes: > Hi Nicolas, > > I just want to say thanks for continuing the conversation, by the way: > I know this thread has gotten long, but I'm glad people are still > paying attention, and Nicolas, your opinion counts for a lot. > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > >> What about the following set? >> >> bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through >> subscript superscript underline superscript > > That would work fine for me in prefixes and suffixes. > >> To be clear, much like Rasmus, I don't like much in-text citations >> syntax above. Actually, I would suggest to mimic footnotes, and handle >> in-text citations with the same syntax as named footnotes. >> >> Using the example from Erik Hetzner in the same thread, what about: >> >> 1. [cite:@item1] says blah. >> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah. >> 3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah. >> 4. [cite:@item1: -@item2 p. 30; see also @item3] says blah. >> 5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3]. >> 6. Another one [cite::see @item1 p. 34-35]. >> 7. Citation with a suffix and locator [cite:: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and nowhere else]. >> 8. A citation without locators [cite:: @item3]. >> 9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else]. >> 10. Like a citation without author: [cite:: -@item1], and now Doe >> with a locator [cite:: -@item2 p. 44]. >> >> explicitly, syntax would be either >> >> [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY] >> >> or >> >> [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS] >> >> where CITATIONS is any number of >> >> PREFIX? KEY SUFFIX? >> >> separated with semi-colons. >> >> It is slightly more verbose, but also more regular and faster to parse. > > I guess I could live with this, but to be honest, I much prefer the Pandoc way. > > The Pandoc syntax has a nice congruence between the source file and > the output: if a cite key is inside the brackets in the source, the > reference is inside the brackets in the output, and if it's outside in > the source, it's outside in the output. This convention seems > natural, easy to remember, and very readable -- at least if, like me > (and I would guess many others), you use author names in cite keys. > > By contrast, I'm used to thinking of footnote labels as having no > direct correlation with the output, so it seems incongruent to use the > analogous position in citation syntax to represent in-text citations. > > So as an author, I prefer the Pandoc way, but I understand there are > other considerations. If we must have the tag for performance > reasons, I would prefer using two different tags to represent the two > cases; I suggest borrowing (from LaTeX's natbib package) "citet" for > in-text and "citep" for bracketed citations , but I don't really care > as long as they're easy to type, and it's easy to change one to the > other. > > What do others think? > > Best, > Richard -- Professor John Kitchin Doherty Hall A207F Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-7803 @johnkitchin http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu