Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:

> I am OK with this if it is important, though I am a little hesitant.

I don't know if it is important. Just thinking out loud.

> In the last thread, you expressed concern that we not have too much
> variation after the opening `[' for performance reasons, which is why I
> kept all the (non-simple) citations to `[cite: ...]'.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Variations after the opening "[" are OK as long
as they are contained in a _fixed_ set. Of course, the smaller the set
the better.

However, a customizable "cite" keyword (à la `org-add-link-type') is
a no-go. If this is really needed, I already suggested

  [cite:subtype: ...]

where "subtype" can be associated to any number of attributes, at user's
discretion.

> Unless you have changed your mind, I assume this means we should try not
> to have very many options for this position.  Expressing capitalization
> here would mean there are now four options, two of which are devoted to
> expressing capitalization.  Is capitalization important enough to
> introduce the complexity for it at *this* crucial syntactic position?

Again, I don't know if capitalization is important enough, but the added
complexity in this case is negligible. Anyhow, I am not wedded to the
idea.

> If we're trying to keep the number of variants after `[' low, we should
> think carefully about what is important enough to go there.  (I think
> parenthetical vs. in-text does meet that bar, but I am not sure
> special-case capitalization does.)

OK.

> Aesthetically, this feels a little *too* much like BibLaTeX to me.

I didn't know BibLaTeX used it at the time I suggested the idea.
I didn't know BibLaTeX was deemed as aesthetically wrong either (why is
it so?).


Regards,