Re: [O] Citations, continued

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:

>> Since full citations can only exist in a bracketed citation, there is no
>> reason to create a third object type for the latter. It acts as a mere
>> container only useful for lexer.
>
> I think this is not quite right: in my original terminology, `individual
> citation' is just an intermediate category.  A bracketed/full citation
> contains at least one, but may contain many, `individual' citations,
> like:
>
> [See @Doe99, p. 3; also @Doe2000, p. 989.]
>
> This is a bracketed/full citation containing two individual citations,
> each with their own prefix and suffix.

You're right. I was confused about citations.

> I do think it's important to allow some markup in the prefix and suffix,
> because there are obvious uses where you might want emphasis, etc.
>
> My initial thought is that a prefix or suffix should only allow:
>   - Entities and LaTeX fragments
>   - Line breaks?
>   - Macros
>   - Text markup
>
> I'd also be happy without macros and line breaks, personally.

Fine.

What about the following set?

 bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through 
 subscript superscript underline superscript

>> That's why I suggested the [cite: ...] part in the first place, which
>> you dismissed quickly. It reduces backtracking a lot and can solve
>> easily some confusing situations.
>>
>> Of course I understand the need for compatibility with existing Pandoc
>> syntax, but I wouldn't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot. Even if
>> we don't use "cite:" markup, I think we should carefully specify current
>> syntax to avoid loopholes.
>
> Another interesting thing I learned from the Pandoc source is that,
> should we want to adopt "[cite: ...]" syntax, I think it would be pretty
> trivial for Pandoc to support it.  (Worst case, they can copy-and-paste
> the Markdown citation parser and then add "cite:" in a couple of
> places.)  So if this is necessary on the Org side for performance or
> ambiguity reasons, I am not against it.
>
> One question, though, is how this should work with in-text citations.
> Should I have to write:
>
> @Smith99 [cite:p. 33]
>
> or
>
> @Smith99 [cite:p. 33; see also @Doe2014]
>
> ?

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: address@hidden 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:: address@hidden, and now Doe
      with a locator [cite:: address@hidden p. 44].

As a reminder, here is a possible output from the text above

  1.   Doe (2005) says blah.
  2.   Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
  3.   Doe (2005, 30, with suffix) says blah.
  4.   Doe (2005; 2006, 30; see also Doe and Roe 2007) says blah.
  5.   A citation group (see Doe 2005, 34–35; also Doe and Roe 2007, chap. 3).
  6.   Another one (see Doe 2005, 34–35).
  7.   Citation with a suffix and locator (Doe 2005, 33, 35–37, and nowhere 
else).
  8.   A citation without locators (Doe and Roe 2007).
  9.   Citation with suffix only (Doe 2005 and nowhere else).
  10.  Like a citation without author: (2005), and now Doe with a locator 
(2006, 44).

Note that space after the second colon is not mandatory. More
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.


Regards,