Re: [O] Citations, continued

[Rasmus]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Using the example from Erik Hetzner in the same thread, what about:
>
>   1. [cite:@item1] says blah.
>   2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.

Why is "p." stripped here?

>   3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>   4. [cite:@item1: address@hidden p. 30; see also @item3] says blah.

If item{1,2} have the same author biblatex[-chicago?] is smart enough to
compress it to "author (year1, year2)". So this example seems like a
downgrade if "-" is required to get the suggested output.

>   5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3].

Why is chap. *not* stripped here?

>   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].

Where does suffix and locator end here.  E.g. what is the output of

     [cite:: @item1 33, pp. 35-37, and nowhere else].

>   9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else].

How do I know this is a suffix?  Is locator a regexp like 
    \`[p\.0-9 ]+? 

What is [cite:@K s. 12] or [cite:@K side.? 12]?

>   10. Like a citation without author: [cite:: address@hidden, and now Doe
>       with a locator [cite:: address@hidden p. 44].

>   2.   Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>   5.   A citation group (see Doe 2005, 34–35; also Doe and Roe 2007, chap. 3).
>   7.   Citation with a suffix and locator (Doe 2005, 33, 35–37, and nowhere 
> else).


> 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.

What if I need several text cite keys.  Say @K{1,2} is the same author A,
and @K3 is B.  Then  [cite:@K1,@K2,@K3] should/could be something like 
A (Y1, Y2), and B (Y3).  How do I express this?

Some comments.

  1. Am I supposed to distinguish between a text citations and parenthesis
     citation based on a single ":"?  That's hard.  Why not distinguish
     based on the initial label?  E.g. {textcite, parentcite} or {citet,
     citep}.

  2. The idea of locator /and/ suffix is confusing.  The fact that your
     examples suggest seemingly random dropping of data from locator makes
     me want to avoid it even more.  It's a 'can of worms' to use a
     frequently emerging expression from this list.

  3. This is almost full circle.  The proposal above seems no better (and
     IMO worse) than e.g. the generalized links that Tom suggested, e.g.
     [TYPE: KEY :pre PRE :post SUF] or [TYPE: PRE @KEY POST]. 
     Or [[TYPE: KEY :pre PRE :post SUF]] or [[TYPE: PRE @KEY POST]].

  4. The reason for suggested syntax seems to be support some benchmark
     like A1 (Y1, Y2 also A2, Y3).  I have never come across a nested
     citation like this.  I have seen either (A1 Y1, Y2 and A2, Y3) or 
     A1 (Y1, Y2) and A2 (Y3). . .

  5. . . . Yet I still don't know how to get A1 (PRE Y2) with the above.
     Is the benchmark correct?

If parsing speed is key here I think that
[citet: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2] and [citep: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 
post2]
are clearer solutions.  But this is clearly closer to a LaTeX than pandoc.

—Rasmus

-- 
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer