My only concern is that it remains possible to support this relatively
full set of citation options on export:
(defcustom org-ref-cite-types
'("cite" "nocite" ;; the default latex cite commands
;; natbib cite commands,
http://ctan.unixbrain.com/macros/latex/contrib/natbib/natnotes.pdf
"citet" "citet*" "citep" "citep*"
"citealt" "citealt*" "citealp" "citealp*"
"citenum" "citetext"
"citeauthor" "citeauthor*"
"citeyear" "citeyear*"
"Citet" "Citep" "Citealt" "Citealp" "Citeauthor"
;; biblatex commands
;;
http://ctan.mirrorcatalogs.com/macros/latex/contrib/biblatex/doc/biblatex.pdf
"Cite"
"parencite" "Parencite"
"footcite" "footcitetext"
"textcite" "Textcite"
"smartcite" "Smartcite"
"cite*" "parencite*" "supercite"
"autocite" "Autocite" "autocite*" "Autocite*"
"Citeauthor*"
"citetitle" "citetitle*"
"citedate" "citedate*"
"citeurl"
"fullcite" "footfullcite"
;; "volcite" "Volcite" cannot support the syntax
"notecite" "Notecite"
"pnotecite" "Pnotecite"
"fnotecite"
;; multicites. Very limited support for these.
"cites" "Cites" "parencites" "Parencites"
"footcites" "footcitetexts"
"smartcites" "Smartcites" "textcites" "Textcites"
"supercites" "autocites" "Autocites"
;; for the bibentry package
"bibentry"
)
"List of citation types known in org-ref"
:type '(repeat :tag "List of citation types" string)
:group 'org-ref)
which we are currently able to do. I never type any of those in, org-ref
does it automatically from a key selection tool.
>From a user point of view, these to me look almost identical to link
syntax, which could be confusing.
[cite:IN-TEXT-KEY]
[cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS]
I don't see the payoff in adding it. you can already have those as
links, and export to pandoc syntac trivial in the first case. The
payoff only comes from item 4 in the list below, with a nested citation,
which I have never seen in the wild in scientific publications. Perhaps
it is more common in other fields.
I don't personally find the pandoc notation easier to understand, eg
[@item] and [-@item]
vs
\cite{item} and \citeauthor{item}
The congruence you mention is not relevant for superscripted references,
there are no brackets or parentheses in that case.
Richard Lawrence writes:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I just want to say thanks for continuing the conversation, by the way:
> I know this thread has gotten long, but I'm glad people are still
> paying attention, and Nicolas, your opinion counts for a lot.
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> What about the following set?
>>
>> bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through
>> subscript superscript underline superscript
>
> That would work fine for me in prefixes and suffixes.
>
>> 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].
>>
>> 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.
>
> I guess I could live with this, but to be honest, I much prefer the Pandoc
> way.
>
> The Pandoc syntax has a nice congruence between the source file and
> the output: if a cite key is inside the brackets in the source, the
> reference is inside the brackets in the output, and if it's outside in
> the source, it's outside in the output. This convention seems
> natural, easy to remember, and very readable -- at least if, like me
> (and I would guess many others), you use author names in cite keys.
>
> By contrast, I'm used to thinking of footnote labels as having no
> direct correlation with the output, so it seems incongruent to use the
> analogous position in citation syntax to represent in-text citations.
>
> So as an author, I prefer the Pandoc way, but I understand there are
> other considerations. If we must have the tag for performance
> reasons, I would prefer using two different tags to represent the two
> cases; I suggest borrowing (from LaTeX's natbib package) "citet" for
> in-text and "citep" for bracketed citations , but I don't really care
> as long as they're easy to type, and it's easy to change one to the
> other.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Best,
> Richard
--
Professor John Kitchin
Doherty Hall A207F
Department of Chemical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-7803
@johnkitchin
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
