On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:08 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > This distinction is wrong, and we should treat "suppress-author" as a > > citation style instead. > > > > The result would be: > > > > [cite/supress-author:doe19;doe20] > > > > Or even can keep the shorthand: > > > > [cite/-:doe19;doe20] > > > > In fact, with the change, could even remove it entirely > > We introduced :suppress-author because someone requested it at some > point. I don't remember who, but it may be worth asking that person. > I did some quick searching. Wow; this goes back a long time! Anyway, Richard Lawrence summarized previous discussions, which includes this detail, in this 2015 post: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2015-02/msg00932.html Not sure if he introduced the idea or not, but if not, he should know. I think there are two points to consider before removing suppress-author > syntax: > > 1. does it make sense to apply it independently on references within > a full citation? > > 2. does it make sense to apply it on top of another style? > Yes; excellent summary. As I say, my impulse is to say no to both, outside some corner cases that people could work around in other ways. But I hope people will challenge me if this is a bad idea. And hopefully Richard can weigh in. If both answers are no, this can definitely go away. > > > Or even can keep the shorthand: > > > > [cite/-:doe19;doe20] > > Note that Org Citation library does not recognize styles. It is up to > the processor to interpret it as a short-hand for "suppress-author". > Right; I understand. Bruce >
