On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 8:03 AM Bruce D'Arcus <bdar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 7:56 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> > wrote:
... > > In any case, this explains why the docstring has a bias. I updated it to > > insist on the fact that these are rules for author-year to note > > conversion. > > FWIW, I agree with this decision. > > High level, the basic logic says to a user if you need to cite > something, insert a citation, and let your citation processor take > care of the rest. > > Whether that final output is a number, a footnote mark, or an > author-date representation, it should "just work." To make explicit what is implicit above: What I'm saying is it's not actually an author-date bias, even if the examples we've discussed have focused on that. Rather, this functionality allows an export processor to handle automatic footnoting of in-text, as opposed to in-note, citations, regardless of what the initial output expectation for those citations are. I don't know how to elegantly express this for the docstring, but just wanted to clarify. Bruce
