On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:30 AM John Kitchin <jkitc...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 5:07 PM John Kitchin <jkitc...@andrew.cmu.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I was looking into using latex commands as styles in org-cite, e.g. >> >> >> >> [cite/citet:@key]. That example works fine, but [cite/citet*:@key] is >> not allowed. Could that be allowed? >> > >> > I have no insight into the restriction, but I hope it can be removed. >> >> I do like the proposal in general, but I can see a potential issue for >> users. Constructs like "word*:" can be recognised as a valid bold >> emphasis ending. For example: >> >> >>> Some *bold emphasis with reference [cite/citet*:@key] will end >> >>> at "citet*", but not here*. >> > > That is a fair point, and also an issue with links that have * in them > (which is also already allowed). I can't say it has ever been reported as > an issue though. > >> >> Note that inserting zero-width space will not only be awkward here, but >> also breaks parser: e.g. [cite/cite<zwspace>t:@key] is not currently >> recognised as a citation. > > > A less awkward solution (IMO) would be to use an entity like ⋆. It is > straightforward to add that to the org-element-citation-prefix-re. Then I > see something like this. > > [image: image.png] > I don't know how difficult it would be to improve the emphasis handling, > it seems like the start/end markers should not cross some element > boundaries. > So Ihor, is there any problem with John's proposed change here? Seems sensible to me. Bruce > > >> >> Best, >> Ihor >> >
