Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[denis.maier.lists@mailbox.org]

> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> hat am 13. April 2020 00:19 geschrieben:
> 
>  
> Hello,
> 
> denis.maier.lists@mailbox.org writes:
> 
> > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and
> > concise, but why limit this to only one character?
> 
> Because… it is good and concise? ;)
> 
> > What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps
> > "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"?
> 
> Note the latter introduces an ambiguity: [cite:see: @doe was right!].
> Fixing it requires two colons in default cite prefix: [cite::@doe].
> I don't think we want this.
> 
> The former doesn't have this bias.

Ok, ambiguity is not good. So we need something else. (As in the other message: cite/note or cite-intext?)

> 
> > The simple syntax is great for most cases, but if you want to support
> > some of those not so common biblatex commands, this might be better.
> 
> Alphanumeric suffix provides 62 combinations, which should hopefully be
> enough for any citation back-end out there (I'm looking at you
> biblatex). It's not terribly readable, tho, as you point out.
> 
> > What do you think?
> 
> This is a conciseness versus readability problem, not a technical one,
> as long as we do not allow too much, from a parser point of view.
> 
> I have no strong opinion on the topic. It would be more valuable to hear
> from actual citations users. What would they prefer?

What about allowing both, just like most command line tools have short and long options (e.g., -o and --open)?

Best,
Denis