Hi Erik and all, Erik Hetzner <e...@e6h.org> writes:
> I am really, really glad to see people discussing citations in > org-mode. But I have some concerns about this proposal. > > Before extensions are proposed to the pandoc format, I think it is > important to understand how flexible the combination of pandoc, and > what citeproc provides. I believe that pandoc can cover most of what > you want. > I also believe it would be a mistake to start from the idea of a > pandoc-style citation syntax that deviates from pandoc. Better instead > to start from what pandoc does now and find out what isn’t working for > org-mode users before extending pandoc, especially in ways that are > not compatible with pandoc. Actually, I totally agree. For my own use, I would be completely happy with just using the Pandoc syntax for citations in Org, without any modifications. The only reason I proposed anything else was that it seemed like other people already know that they need more than the Pandoc syntax provides. I think the main realistic cases are those where, in LaTeX, you'd use commands like \citetitle, \citedate, or \citejournal -- citation commands that pull in just a particular field from the reference, because that is what the context around the citation requires. I don't see a way to do that in the Pandoc syntax. (But am I missing something?) Hence my proposed field-selectors extension. Personally, I need commands like these so little that I am happy to do without them. So maybe my proposal was a bit hasty. Could we hear from other people about how badly they need what such commands provide? > And if extensions are proposed, it would be best to propose them on > the pandoc-discuss mailing list. It would be wonderful for users if > the syntax in pandoc-markdown and org-mode could stay aligned. Yes, I again totally agree. If people here settle on a syntax that is close, but not quite the same as, Pandoc's, I will certainly do that. Best, Richard