emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Citations, continued


From: Erik Hetzner
Subject: Re: [O] Citations, continued
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:30:04 -0800
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/25.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

Hi Richard,

On Mon,  2 Feb 2015 at 20:41:06 PST,
Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hi Erik and all,
> 
> Actually, I totally agree.  For my own use, I would be completely happy
> with just using the Pandoc syntax for citations in Org, without any
> modifications.

Great!

> The only reason I proposed anything else was that it seemed like other
> people already know that they need more than the Pandoc syntax provides.
> I think the main realistic cases are those where, in LaTeX, you'd use
> commands like \citetitle, \citedate, or \citejournal -- citation
> commands that pull in just a particular field from the reference,
> because that is what the context around the citation requires.  I don't
> see a way to do that in the Pandoc syntax.  (But am I missing
> something?)  Hence my proposed field-selectors extension.

If this is needed (and I still have a hard time seeing the use cases,
but I am not an academic) perhaps it could mimic the address@hidden (suppress
author) syntax already used in pandoc (e.g. address@hidden). But
citeproc-js/hs only support suppress author or author only, so these
would not work in a pandoc export, nor any other that might depend on
citeproc-js.

> Personally, I need commands like these so little that I am happy to do
> without them.  So maybe my proposal was a bit hasty.  Could we hear from
> other people about how badly they need what such commands provide?
> 
> > And if extensions are proposed, it would be best to propose them on
> > the pandoc-discuss mailing list. It would be wonderful for users if
> > the syntax in pandoc-markdown and org-mode could stay aligned.
> 
> Yes, I again totally agree.  If people here settle on a syntax that is
> close, but not quite the same as, Pandoc's, I will certainly do that.

Again, this is great. I really do appreciate your getting this
proposal out there. I hope that I can finish porting my pandoc parser
to elisp within a week or so, so we can have an implementation to
start with.

best, Erik
--
Sent from my free software system <http://fsf.org/>.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]