Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

It seems you didn't copy the list. I add it again.

> No, I think that should be fine. (Perhaps also a fourth one for
> author-only. And what about nocite?)

Sorry. I wasn't clear.

There is still full support for styles behind the suggested syntax,
e.g., [cite/author: ...], [cite/nocite: ...] (this one is odd). I was
pointing out that we cover Citeproc needs, and more.

> Author in text, the rest in a footnote.

So it is not really a new style; you can have cite-text on top of any
style. This might be a problem. Either we invent an alternate syntax,
with duplicated styles, e.g.

  [cite: ...]     [cite/style: ...] 
  [cite*: ...]    [cite*/style: ...]

this was already suggested in this thread (with "citet").

Or we make use of sub-styles, e.g.

  [cite: ...]       [cite/foot: ...]
  [cite/text: ...]  [cite/foot/text: ...]

This is ambiguous, tho: is it "cite/foot/text" or "cite/text/foot"?

Of course, this is an issue for BibLaTeX only. AFAIU, [cite/text: ...]
is totally unambiguous for Citeproc.

What do Bib(La)TeX users think about it?

> That doesn't exist in CSL. It could be useful though.

It is odd that citeproc-el offers this, then.

> citeproc-js handles pseudo-html, with pandoc-citeproc it's possible to
> use markdown, but I think also raw HTML should be supported...

It sounds good enough, then. Besides, i assume markup in prefix/suffix
is not common.

Thank you.