Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Albert Krewinkel]

Bruce D'Arcus writes:

> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:38 AM Albert Krewinkel <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Bruce D'Arcus writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> "Bruce D'Arcus" <address@hidden> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values,
>> >> > basically; not plain text strings.
>> >>
>> >> OK, but it is enough for Org to feed a CSL processor with, e.g.,
>> >>
>> >>   key    -> "@doe99"
>> >>   prefix -> "see "
>> >>   suffix -> ", pp. 33-35"
>> >>
>> >> Then CSL processor does its job to extract whatever information it
>> >> needs. Am I right?
>> >
>> > On this, I would defer to András and Albert (who maintains the pandoc
>> > org code, I believe).
>>
>> Yes, that is correct. Pandoc parses `prefix` and `suffix` as markup, so
>> the pp in ", /pp/. 33-35." would be italicized.
>
> And Pandoc parses that "suffix" into two parts: the locators, and the
> suffix proper.

"Pandoc", as used above, is probably meant to include pandoc-citeproc,
the CSL processor shipped with pandoc. Pandoc itself does not process
the prefix/suffix values further, but leaves that to pandoc-citeproc:

https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/blob/d7eb5fd15980ba40d7bffd6d2f031a229881668f/src/Text/CSL/Pandoc.hs#L471

> In this example, from the CSL perspective, there is no suffix; just a locator.

>From pandoc's point of view, there is no difference. Org-mode could
probably take a similar stance.

> So to answer Nicholes' "CSL processor does its job" question, the
> answer would be "yes'; correct?

Agree.


--
Albert Krewinkel
GPG: 8eed e3e2 e8c5 6f18 81fe  e836 388d c0b2 1f63 1124