Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu>]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

>> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the fact that the
>> citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, and that it has a prefix
>> and suffix, should be represented in the output.
>
> 1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of in-text
>     or parenthetical already chosen for you?  Stated other way, is the
>     choice between parenthetical or in-text document-wide or is it that
>     one could intermix the two styles in the same document.

These could be intermixed in the same document.  The document-level
style determines how each type ultimately looks, but the choice of style
is (mostly) independent of using parenthetical vs. in-text citations.

> 2. Citation processor like JabRef just takes a cite-key.  It doesn't
>     take a pre or post-note.  So, the pre and post notes should be
>     spliced in to the exported document by the elisp module that
>     interfaces with the citation processor.

Right.  That's what I'm thinking, anyway.

> If we are going to interface with a citation-processor, the best
> course of action would be to have someone first 'gauge' the
> capabilities provided by the citation processor and let that
> experience inform what Org should aspire to do.

Yes.  Other people have more experience with this than me.  But based on
what Pandoc is able to do, I am pretty confident that everything that
has been proposed could be handled by a CSL processor like citeproc-js
(or Pandoc's own).  The possible exceptions are the common prefix and
common suffix in a multi-work citation, which I imagine would be easy
enough to add to the output of the citation processor.

Best,
Richard