Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes:
>> To support multi cites, we must first decide how the parsed will present
>> information, i.e., what are the properties in the following case
>>
>> [cite:pre; pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2; post]
>
> I was thinking that this should yield a citation object with a structure like:
>
> ('citation ...
> :common-prefix pre
> :common-suffix post
> :references ((:prefix pre1
> :key "k1"
> :suffix post1 ...)
> (:prefix pre2
> :key "k2"
> :suffix post2 ...))
> ...)
>
> Would that work?
Yes. I find it better than "entries/entry" as discussed with Rasmus.
I'll implement it in a few days.
> Oh, I did not realize there were outstanding issues with this. I
> remember Rasmus not liking `&'. I'm fine with changing it, though I
> cannot think of a better symbol. Does someone think we should not have
> a way of indicating that a reference should produce a full bibliography
> entry? Or that we should indicate it in some other way?
AFAIC, I don't think a dedicated symbol is useful. It can be implemented
through subtypes/properties. Besides LaTeX, could other back-end provide
that feature anyway?
I have no opinion about the :suppress-author symbol.
Regards,
