From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 8PG8Bj73ml48fQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:49:02 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id ALbJEUL3ml4TRAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:49:06 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C897E941238 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57594 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPmu5-0001eN-GJ for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:49:01 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPmtT-0001bM-4K for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:48:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPmtR-00060f-Pt for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:48:23 -0400 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.21]:34317) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPmtR-0005xE-Eo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:48:21 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090EB3B6; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:48:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=7HnDLc PRcGr0SHqzDIUIF4ID63Z5w0onoGq6zXJPpbQ=; b=UbRubtOQUGBl8nIuXHhM7D aAXYs24TJYxhwy0ECy7yJfVhVyaNDH4c3aAF6x3D47/y9GXghKqAbibtCEslF+GJ h+cEbMzc5Xpe9kFSNsxZOft0oVKTBrtRnA2W4eTUbPMJNSdy9e2WYv6dpiv92RFe /oUagPxIRSwlmQED/yrHrT6Nu3xoiA5lLCVV25WvAfkMf787feGNsrzPU3wa2Faw ciRlCuDFMwVdwJhKnq2xNT1Msl8iWSR5el9lyZd8pEgbwjyJRJ1tj8RR3lZraK/v XcwUaEZMke8t+W4foj9zYIzUZ596Xr0F15BWKxF9Pi7wgNNs9z3oSouO+C007S7Q == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrfeelgdehkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffujghffffkgggtsehttdertddttddtnecuhfhrohhmpeftihgthhgrrhgu ucfnrgifrhgvnhgtvgcuoehrihgthhgrrhgurdhlrgifrhgvnhgtvgesuhhnihdqthhuvg gsihhnghgvnhdruggvqeenucfkphepgeeirdehrddvheehrdduvdegnecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprhiflhesfhgrshhtmhgrih hlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from aquinas (hsi-kbw-046-005-255-124.hsi8.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [46.5.255.124]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 401473280059; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwl by aquinas with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jPmtN-0007bC-Gh; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:48:17 +0200 From: Richard Lawrence To: Bruce D'Arcus Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback In-Reply-To: References: <777184861.71192.1586510991834@office.mailbox.org> <87imi72bn0.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1016821769.78551.1586641375789@office.mailbox.org> <87h7xp0z1y.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874kto245n.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sgh8zpmg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1084456979.81820.1586724551265@office.mailbox.org> <877dykz6ri.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r1wrwvam.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87wo6hfg4k.fsf@aquinas> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:48:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87v9lx6ju6.fsf@aquinas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 64.147.123.21 X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Joost Kremers , org-mode-email Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: -0.81 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=UbRubtOQ; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [-0.81 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.5745675454749]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.25), country: US(-0.01), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.57)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[messagingengine.com:+]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[46.5.255.124:received]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[209.51.188.17:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[richard.lawrence@uni-tuebingen.de,emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[messagingengine.com:s=fm2]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[messagingengine.com:dkim]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[uni-tuebingen.de]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[fastmail.fm,gnu.org]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: PFqEDMrvkEVK Hi Bruce and all, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > Just to align what you're saying and what I'm saying: > > I see three commands in the pandoc syntax: standard/parenthetical, > author-in-text, and suppress-author; that look like so: > > [@doe17] > @doe17 > -@doe17 > > Implicit in what you wrote is the last one is not needed. > > The question, then: Is that what you're saying; we don't need suppress-author? Ah, no, I didn't intend it like that. I am not very familiar with the implementation details of pandoc-citeproc and wasn't aware that suppress-author was a different type of citation command. I was (vaguely) thinking of the third case as a "variant" of an in-text citation type, rather than a separate type. Actually, the Pandoc example you give seems to support this way of thinking about it: > Doe, by contrast, found negative results [-@doe17]. That is a fourth case, right? "[-@doe17]" is not equivalent to "-@doe17"? In other words, what we have here are two orthogonal distinctions: parenthetical vs. in-text, and normal vs. author-suppressed. So, at least on my funny way of counting ;), that's two citation "types", with two "variants" within each of those types. > one of the CSL implementers (Frank Bennett) figured out how to make > the above example an author-in-text variant, so that you don't need > suppress-author, and the entire sentence is the citation. > > He did this by adding an optional "infix" variable to the citation. > > So in that example, you would have: > > - command: "author-in-text" > - citekey: "doe17" > - infix: "by contrast, found negative results" > > This is arguably an edge case, but it does relate to the question of > whether we need two (standard and author-in-text) or three commands > (adding the suppress-author). > > One could make the reasonable argument (I think, though not everyone > would agree) that the workaround for the above example is to use > author-in-text command but restructure the sentence: > > @doe17, by contrast, found negative results. > > From that perspective, I guess we indeed need only two commands: > standard (parenthetical) and author-in-text. This way of writing the sentence seems less obvious to me than the pandoc syntax. It also has the potential disadvantage that the choice between rendering "Doe (2017), by contrast, found negative results" and "Doe, by contrast, found negative results (2017)" now has to be made at the level of the stylesheet instead of at the level of the sentence where that citation appears. My instinct is that this choice is informed by individual writing style and better made at the level of the sentence. But you probably have a better sense than I do of whether this is something that should at least sometimes be controlled by the stylesheet. (Are there e.g. journals that always want in-text citations to look like the latter case? I have no idea.) In any case, if I'm right that this choice is usually better made at the sentence level, then I think the syntax needs to support all four cases. .The pandoc syntax does this, and I think the suppress-author variation is probably needed often enough that we should have something similar. -- Best, Richard