Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes: > I am OK with this if it is important, though I am a little hesitant.
I don't know if it is important. Just thinking out loud. > In the last thread, you expressed concern that we not have too much > variation after the opening `[' for performance reasons, which is why I > kept all the (non-simple) citations to `[cite: ...]'. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Variations after the opening "[" are OK as long as they are contained in a _fixed_ set. Of course, the smaller the set the better. However, a customizable "cite" keyword (à la `org-add-link-type') is a no-go. If this is really needed, I already suggested [cite:subtype: ...] where "subtype" can be associated to any number of attributes, at user's discretion. > Unless you have changed your mind, I assume this means we should try not > to have very many options for this position. Expressing capitalization > here would mean there are now four options, two of which are devoted to > expressing capitalization. Is capitalization important enough to > introduce the complexity for it at *this* crucial syntactic position? Again, I don't know if capitalization is important enough, but the added complexity in this case is negligible. Anyhow, I am not wedded to the idea. > If we're trying to keep the number of variants after `[' low, we should > think carefully about what is important enough to go there. (I think > parenthetical vs. in-text does meet that bar, but I am not sure > special-case capitalization does.) OK. > Aesthetically, this feels a little *too* much like BibLaTeX to me. I didn't know BibLaTeX used it at the time I suggested the idea. I didn't know BibLaTeX was deemed as aesthetically wrong either (why is it so?). Regards,