emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [O] Citations, continued


From: Rasmus
Subject: Re: [O] Citations, continued
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:02:13 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> In the initial suggestion @k:journal or @k:author was not possible. In
> pandoc, AFAIU, in-text means author is outside parenthesis. Nothing
> fancier. So address@hidden would mean: "author" is outside parenthesis, but
> should not be displayed anyway.

If address@hidden has non-obvious, interchangeable meanings depending on where 
it
happens to be typed I like it even less.  "-@" seems flaky and
over-complicated IMO.

> Really my concerns are about parsing speed and readability within the
> document. 

Agreed.

> Heavy biblatex users will eventually have to fall-back to
> LaTeX-specific syntax at some point anyway.

That's unfortunate.


>>> I understand, but would it be needed to have both A (Y, C) and A (B, Y)
>>> in the same document?
>>
>> Sure, why not?
>
> I don't know. Pandoc doesn't allow it, and, apparently, nobody
> complained enough to add this feature to Pandoc citations. So, either it
> is not that useful, or Pandoc citations are hardly used.

Perhaps Org-Mode users write more sophisticated documents

See Tom's post for a more careful analysis of what data a citation
contains.

> Also, it is ambiguous with link syntax (e.g., if pre begin with "[") and
> footnotes syntax.

So don't allow footnotes and links within citations.  Emphasis is enough.
This is a less severe loss than PRENOTE.  Also, nested citations can be
dropped: e.g. A1 (Y1, POST1, PRE1 A2 Y2 POST2) if that makes parsing
easier.

>>> I haven't much against @k1, but it introduces more false positives than
>>> address@hidden
>>
>> It could check if k1 is a known key and interpret "@k1" accordingly.
>
> No it couldn't. Org doesn't know about keys. Or, more precisely, syntax
> mustn't depend on known keys. I don't want to make the same mistake as
> export blocks (i.e., #+begin_html doesn't mean the same thing if
> "ox-html" is loaded or not).

That's valid.  I remember having run into this (and maybe even report it
as a bug).

—Rasmus

-- 
With monopolies the cake is a lie!



reply via email to

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