Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:

> If so, then I think Nicolas' proposal to have "cite" mean default and
> make non-default citations available as "cite/xxx" makes sense
> (especially with the other syntax supporting suppress-author, etc.).
>
> If not, then the "cite/xxx" syntax makes less sense to me; it just sort
> of looks like a different way of writing BibLaTeX commands, and will be
> hard to support when LaTeX is not the output format. I would be hesitant
> in that case to make "cite/xxx" the standard way to express "this
> citation should be rendered in manner xxx, instead of the default".

Note that I only followed as many requests from participants to this
thread as possible.

Anyway, I'm a bit lost here. The point to the syntax is to support
Citeproc as well as Bib(La)TeX and Org Ref, so it has to deal with both
processors using a limited set of cite commands, and processors with an
awful lot of cite commands. On top of that, some users requested name
spaces for custom commands, which only makes sense in Bib(La)TeX
context, IIUC. So, there we are.

I suggested to support at least "cite", "cite/text" and "cite/paren",
but it sounds like "cite/paren" is not possible with Citeproc. This
doesn't matter much, we can limit the supported set to "cite" and
"cite/text" in Citeproc.

I think there are really two paths here: either we only support the
common denominator between all processors, like, e.g., Pandoc, or we
handle every possible command, knowing that most of them will not be
portable anyways.

WDYT?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou