John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I am also not a fan of using Unicode here and prefer a simple ascii
> asterisk. That works fine for me so far, but I am not a heavy user of bold
> markup and citations.
What about something like [cite/citet*/:@key]?
"*/" is not recognised as bold ending.
That is a great solution when you want to have bold, and it would be optional if you don’t use bold there. You still would need to add * to the cite pattern.
> As I mentioned there is the same problem for links, and in the last 10
> years I can’t recall an issue being reported with bold.
This is because links containing "\\*[ -.,;:!?'")}\\[]" match are
extremely rare.
In contrast, [cite/citet*:@key] is likely to be used fairly frequently
and has much higher chance to break things.
We have had a citet*:key link (and all the other * variants) for a long time in org-ref, with no reported issues I can recall.
Best,
Ihor