Hello, denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes:
> Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and > concise, but why limit this to only one character? Because… it is good and concise? ;) > What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps > "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"? Note the latter introduces an ambiguity: [cite:see: @doe was right!]. Fixing it requires two colons in default cite prefix: [cite::@doe]. I don't think we want this. The former doesn't have this bias. > The simple syntax is great for most cases, but if you want to support > some of those not so common biblatex commands, this might be better. Alphanumeric suffix provides 62 combinations, which should hopefully be enough for any citation back-end out there (I'm looking at you biblatex). It's not terribly readable, tho, as you point out. > What do you think? This is a conciseness versus readability problem, not a technical one, as long as we do not allow too much, from a parser point of view. I have no strong opinion on the topic. It would be more valuable to hear from actual citations users. What would they prefer? > Concerning some other open questions, I suggest sticking to what > citeproc-org uses: > > 1. For the bibliography: > > #+bibliography: something.bib > (Could this be a list containing multiple files?) Multiple keywords may be more appropriate, particularly if you need to spell out absolute file names. Org can provide a function listing all of them anyway. > 2. Placing the bibliography with: > > #+bibliography: here > (Ideally, it would be possible to have this multiple times, perhaps > with some filters, like printing only the works of a certain author, > or with certain keywords, or so. But that's, of course something for > later...) It is smart, but I'm not sure I like using the same keyword for two different things. OTOH, I don't have a better idea. > 3. Setting the style: > #+CSL_STYLE: "some-style.csl" > > Of course, if you're using biblatex or natbib you'll need another > option for that. I think this part is out of Org's scope. Since values between various citation back-ends are probably not compatible, e.g., some may require a file, others a style name, normalization is not useful here. They can use whatever keyword they fancy. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
