Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM Richard Lawrence
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce and all,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Just to align what you're saying and what I'm saying:
> >
> > I see three commands in the pandoc syntax: standard/parenthetical,
> > author-in-text, and suppress-author; that look like so:
> >
> > [@doe17]
> > @doe17
> > -@doe17
> >
> > Implicit in what you wrote is the last one is not needed.
> >
> > The question, then: Is that what you're saying; we don't need 
> > suppress-author?
>
> Ah, no, I didn't intend it like that.

Glad I asked then!

> I am not very familiar with the
> implementation details of pandoc-citeproc and wasn't aware that
> suppress-author was a different type of citation command. I was
> (vaguely) thinking of the third case as a "variant" of an in-text
> citation type, rather than a separate type.
>
> Actually, the Pandoc example you give seems to support this way of
> thinking about it:
>
> > Doe, by contrast, found negative results [-@doe17].
>
> That is a fourth case, right? "[-@doe17]" is not equivalent to "-@doe17"?

I think, notwithstanding a mistake I think I made in my previous
message, the "-" wouldn't be relevant to a bare author-in-text
citation command; the latter case.

So I think that's still three commands. Hopefully the below explains
why, but please let me know.

> In other words, what we have here are two orthogonal distinctions:
> parenthetical vs. in-text, and normal vs. author-suppressed. So, at
> least on my funny way of counting ;), that's two citation "types", with
> two "variants" within each of those types.

Just for clarity, for the record, "parenthetical" is the language of
author-date citation styles.

But what we're talking about with citet-like citations is broader than this.

In a numeric style, for example, you could have "Doe [3]"; so this
really applies to any style type (including end/footnote-based).

What we're doing is putting the author in the sentence; and outside
the citation.

This is why I'm using the more general language of  "author-in-text."

So three output cases, in author-date/numeric, where I've placed
content output by the citation processor in braces to distinguish it
from content entered by the user:

1. "Blah blah {(Doe, 2017)}"/"Blah blah {[3]}" -> default cite command
2. "{Doe (2017)}"/"{Doe [3]}" -> author-in-text command
3. "Doe blah blah {(2017)}"/"Doe blah blah {[3]}" -> suppress-author command

I can't see that it's necessary to have a fourth, because I think the
result of that would be this, which doesn't make any sense.

4.  "Doe blah blah {2017}"/"Doe blah blah {[3]}" ->
author-in-text+suppress-author command

Let us know what you think?

Bruce