Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes: > I welcome feedback, comments, criticisms, and objections on any point. > However, since we've already had a long discussion about this, I > respectfully request that we try to keep this thread focused. To that > end, I suggest: > > 1) If you have criticisms or objections, please try to indicate > whether you think they are `substantive' (e.g., you see a problem > that would prevent you from using this syntax, or prevent Org from > implementing it) or not (e.g., you would prefer a slightly > different but equivalent way of expressing something). > > 2) If you wish to express an opinion about the proposal without > offering further comments, let us know by just replying with +1 > (meaning you'd like to see this syntax, or something reasonably > similar to it, be adopted), 0, or -1 (meaning you'd prefer not to > see this syntax or anything similar to it adopted).
0 A syntax that relegates citation commands to an extension that might not export properly in future versions of Org mode isn't useful in my work. All the best, Tom -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com
