Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes:
>> Since full citations can only exist in a bracketed citation, there is no
>> reason to create a third object type for the latter. It acts as a mere
>> container only useful for lexer.
>
> I think this is not quite right: in my original terminology, `individual
> citation' is just an intermediate category. A bracketed/full citation
> contains at least one, but may contain many, `individual' citations,
> like:
>
> [See @Doe99, p. 3; also @Doe2000, p. 989.]
>
> This is a bracketed/full citation containing two individual citations,
> each with their own prefix and suffix.
You're right. I was confused about citations.
> I do think it's important to allow some markup in the prefix and suffix,
> because there are obvious uses where you might want emphasis, etc.
>
> My initial thought is that a prefix or suffix should only allow:
> - Entities and LaTeX fragments
> - Line breaks?
> - Macros
> - Text markup
>
> I'd also be happy without macros and line breaks, personally.
Fine.
What about the following set?
bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through
subscript superscript underline superscript
>> That's why I suggested the [cite: ...] part in the first place, which
>> you dismissed quickly. It reduces backtracking a lot and can solve
>> easily some confusing situations.
>>
>> Of course I understand the need for compatibility with existing Pandoc
>> syntax, but I wouldn't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot. Even if
>> we don't use "cite:" markup, I think we should carefully specify current
>> syntax to avoid loopholes.
>
> Another interesting thing I learned from the Pandoc source is that,
> should we want to adopt "[cite: ...]" syntax, I think it would be pretty
> trivial for Pandoc to support it. (Worst case, they can copy-and-paste
> the Markdown citation parser and then add "cite:" in a couple of
> places.) So if this is necessary on the Org side for performance or
> ambiguity reasons, I am not against it.
>
> One question, though, is how this should work with in-text citations.
> Should I have to write:
>
> @Smith99 [cite:p. 33]
>
> or
>
> @Smith99 [cite:p. 33; see also @Doe2014]
>
> ?
To be clear, much like Rasmus, I don't like much in-text citations
syntax above. Actually, I would suggest to mimic footnotes, and handle
in-text citations with the same syntax as named footnotes.
Using the example from Erik Hetzner in the same thread, what about:
1. [cite:@item1] says blah.
2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
4. [cite:@item1: -@item2 p. 30; see also @item3] says blah.
5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3].
6. Another one [cite::see @item1 p. 34-35].
7. Citation with a suffix and locator [cite:: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and
nowhere else].
8. A citation without locators [cite:: @item3].
9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else].
10. Like a citation without author: [cite:: -@item1], and now Doe
with a locator [cite:: -@item2 p. 44].
As a reminder, here is a possible output from the text above
1. Doe (2005) says blah.
2. Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
3. Doe (2005, 30, with suffix) says blah.
4. Doe (2005; 2006, 30; see also Doe and Roe 2007) says blah.
5. A citation group (see Doe 2005, 34–35; also Doe and Roe 2007, chap. 3).
6. Another one (see Doe 2005, 34–35).
7. Citation with a suffix and locator (Doe 2005, 33, 35–37, and nowhere
else).
8. A citation without locators (Doe and Roe 2007).
9. Citation with suffix only (Doe 2005 and nowhere else).
10. Like a citation without author: (2005), and now Doe with a locator
(2006, 44).
Note that space after the second colon is not mandatory. More
explicitly, syntax would be either
[cite:IN-TEXT-KEY]
or
[cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS]
where CITATIONS is any number of
PREFIX? KEY SUFFIX?
separated with semi-colons.
It is slightly more verbose, but also more regular and faster to parse.
Regards,
