Rasmus <[email protected]> writes:
> I was actually looking at this today and wondering why this was not
> supported.
Not enough specifications.
> I think a citation object should always member of a citations object. So
> the above would be
>
> (citations (:begin n :end N :prefix pre :suffix post
> :citations
> '((citation (:key k1 :begin n1 :end N1 :prefix pre1))
> (citation (:key k2 :begin n2 :end N2 :prefix pre2 :suffix
> post2)))))
OK.
However mixing `citations' and `citation' is confusing. I'd rather keep
the outer one as `citation'. What could go inside? Maybe `cite'?
Moreover,
[cite:@key]
will be parsed as
[citation (:begin n :end N
:whatever '((whatever (:key key :begin n1 :end N1 :prefix pre1))))]
Is that correct?
> This makes it naturally to operate over one many citations. I don't know
> if this should be some sort of pseudo-object or what. Also, one issue I
> ran into when trying to get [@k1; @k2] working was that @k2 is recognized
> as an inline citation (which means that I probably did something
> wrong)...
[@k1; @k2] ?
This is unspecified. [@k1] is a shortcut for [(cite):@k1], nothing more.
Anything more complicated should go in a [cite:...] object.
> Of course, a quasi-tricky part (I think) is that [cite: pre @key post]
> should be (with no "global" :prefix and :suffix):
>
> (citations (:begin n :end N
> :citations
> '((citation (:key key :begin n1 :end N1 :prefix pre :suffix
> post)))))
>
> Which imply that citations are parsed from "the middle" and outwards.
I don't see any ambiguity here, since semi colons are forbidden in PRE
and POST.
> Nicolas: I wrote a patch for subtypes (with "/" as a separator as most
> people seemed to like that). Should I post it or will you take care of it
> eventually? I don't know if you have got a game-plan in mind?
I didn't add subtypes because we didn't reach a consensus on it.
I suggest to wait until everybody realizes subtypes are the superior
choice.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
