Re: Expanding how the new cite syntax is used to include cross-references - thoughts?

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 1:31 PM John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

...

> > It's just there needs to be some way to distinguish among types of
> > targets, I think.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I don't think this is true.

Just to clarify ...yes, I agree with you; I wrote that before the
subsequent back-and-forth yesterday.

So no need to repeat: we are now in closer agreement than we were
before the discussion :-)

> As I have thought about this more, the line between citations and
> cross-references has blurred. In org-ref, they were handled the same
> way, with org-links (although each link had its own export function).
> For both cites and refs, the links are just pointers, and in both cases
> it is possible for them to point to things within the same document.
> Even in LaTeX, when we submit a manuscript, the citation references are
> embedded in a standalone tex file, so every link is to an internal
> location.

Let's step back though:

What is the ideal UX for org users?

Per my response to Timothy yesterday, and what I have said elsewhere
about how citations and cross-references are handled elsewhere in the
software universe, I think it's not to remove the distinction, but
rather to clarify it.

In effect, the choice is between:

1. org-cite-insert for both citations and cross-refernces
2. org-cite-insert for the former, org-ref-insert for the latter

Even in org-ref, you adopted 2.; there's a separate command and menu
entry for each, and a different UI.

Do you now think that was a bad decision in retrospect?

Bruce