From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Lawrence Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 18:46:16 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d04780.cb58460a.5243.2603@mx.google.com> <87h9v3li8t.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d078ff.b044440a.06ec.3cf6@mx.google.com> <87d25rkmag.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d1bc7b.c57d440a.3c5d.2dca@mx.google.com> <87vbjh284z.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87mw4tk4m7.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87oap7z664.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87fvaibr3k.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87y4o9s5qc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKHt8-0003rb-9G for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:46:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKHt4-000815-87 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:46:22 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:57620) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKHt4-00080v-4X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 21:46:18 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 79so6206121ykr.0 for ; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:46:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87y4o9s5qc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Richard Lawrence , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Hi Nicolas, I just want to say thanks for continuing the conversation, by the way: I know this thread has gotten long, but I'm glad people are still paying attention, and Nicolas, your opinion counts for a lot. On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > What about the following set? > > bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through > subscript superscript underline superscript That would work fine for me in prefixes and suffixes. > To be clear, much like Rasmus, I don't like much in-text citations > syntax above. Actually, I would suggest to mimic footnotes, and handle > in-text citations with the same syntax as named footnotes. > > Using the example from Erik Hetzner in the same thread, what about: > > 1. [cite:@item1] says blah. > 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah. > 3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah. > 4. [cite:@item1: -@item2 p. 30; see also @item3] says blah. > 5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3]. > 6. Another one [cite::see @item1 p. 34-35]. > 7. Citation with a suffix and locator [cite:: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and nowhere else]. > 8. A citation without locators [cite:: @item3]. > 9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else]. > 10. Like a citation without author: [cite:: -@item1], and now Doe > with a locator [cite:: -@item2 p. 44]. > > explicitly, syntax would be either > > [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY] > > or > > [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS] > > where CITATIONS is any number of > > PREFIX? KEY SUFFIX? > > separated with semi-colons. > > It is slightly more verbose, but also more regular and faster to parse. I guess I could live with this, but to be honest, I much prefer the Pandoc way. The Pandoc syntax has a nice congruence between the source file and the output: if a cite key is inside the brackets in the source, the reference is inside the brackets in the output, and if it's outside in the source, it's outside in the output. This convention seems natural, easy to remember, and very readable -- at least if, like me (and I would guess many others), you use author names in cite keys. By contrast, I'm used to thinking of footnote labels as having no direct correlation with the output, so it seems incongruent to use the analogous position in citation syntax to represent in-text citations. So as an author, I prefer the Pandoc way, but I understand there are other considerations. If we must have the tag for performance reasons, I would prefer using two different tags to represent the two cases; I suggest borrowing (from LaTeX's natbib package) "citet" for in-text and "citep" for bracketed citations , but I don't really care as long as they're easy to type, and it's easy to change one to the other. What do others think? Best, Richard