Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-18 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Matt, Matt Price writes: > Just a note about Zotero: I think for most of us, the reason to export > into ODT and/or DOC is to circulate a paper either for review or > collaboration. Either case will likely involve some revision to citations, > which would ideally be handled through Zotero.

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-17 Thread Matt Price
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Richard Lawrence < richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas Leha writes: > > > I have been following this thread from (quite) some distance as I am > > very interested in more general citation support from orgmode. Please > > allow some ba

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-17 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Andreas, Andreas Leha writes: >>> 2. The non-LaTeX exports >>> These are all treated the same and will contain just text, that is >>> produced to mimic LaTeX's output to some extent? >> >> Well, that depends on what you mean by `just' text. Citations can still >> contain or be wrapped in mar

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-17 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi Richard, Thank you very much for your detailed answer. Richard Lawrence writes: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas Leha writes: > >> I have been following this thread from (quite) some distance as I am >> very interested in more general citation support from orgmode. Please >> allow some basic quest

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-17 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Andreas, Andreas Leha writes: > I have been following this thread from (quite) some distance as I am > very interested in more general citation support from orgmode. Please > allow some basic questions: > > 1. For the LaTeX user > This change means that the LaTeX user can use org syntax for

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-17 Thread Andreas Leha
Hi all, Richard Lawrence writes: > Hi Aaron and all, > > Richard Lawrence writes: > >> I'll take some time this weekend to see if I can wire this together with >> the Elisp Aaron wrote for the Org exporter side. > > I've had some success with this. I would not say that my efforts are > complet

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-16 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Aaron and all, Richard Lawrence writes: > I'll take some time this weekend to see if I can wire this together with > the Elisp Aaron wrote for the Org exporter side. I've had some success with this. I would not say that my efforts are complete yet, but I thought I should send an update to l

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-13 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Aaron and all, Richard Lawrence writes: >> What version of citeproc-hs are you using? The version under that >> name is no longer maintained, and I had some trouble getting it to >> build. > > I am in fact using the version under that name (I have not had trouble > installing/building it via

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-11 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Aaron and all, I cleaned up my efforts a bit and posted them here: https://github.com/wyleyr/org-citeproc (This program is just a modified version of John MacFarlane's citeproc program: https://github.com/jgm/citeproc/ which reads JSON in a slightly different format, and produces JSON inste

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-10 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Aloha Aaron, Aaron Ecay writes: > I have made citeproc-java give output like: > > Smith2014 > Doe1999 > Smith et al.2005 > > I parse that into lists of (author, year) pairs by splitting on the > . Then I expose a template to elisp: “%p%a (%y%s)” (for prefix, > author, year, and

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-10 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Richard, Thanks for your comments, and for your work on an implementation. 2015ko martxoak 10an, Richard Lawrence-ek idatzi zuen: > I have actually been working on the same problem, using citeproc-hs as > the CSL processor instead of citeproc-java. This is an interesting approach. What versi

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-10 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Rasmus, Thanks for your comments. Some replies: 2015ko martxoak 10an, Rasmus-ek idatzi zuen: >> These are then slurped by org, and used to fill in printf-style >> templates. Some people mentioned using citations as generated by >> citeproc-java directly. However, I don’t believe this is rel

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-10 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Aaron and all, Aaron Ecay writes: > I’ve pushed an update to my branch. The major change is to use > citeproc-java for the generation of the bibliography and the parsing of > names. That is awesome! Thank you for your work. > The former is straightforward. For the latter, I have created

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-10 Thread Rasmus
Hi, Aaron Ecay writes: > I’ve pushed an update to my branch. Thank you Aaron! I appreciate the work. While the below may sound bitter, it's not! > These are then slurped by org, and used to fill in printf-style > templates. Some people mentioned using citations as generated by > citeproc-ja

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-09 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hello all, I’ve pushed an update to my branch. The major change is to use citeproc-java for the generation of the bibliography and the parsing of names. The former is straightforward. For the latter, I have created a CSL file which outputs author-year citations in an easy-to-parse format. These

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-09 Thread Vaidheeswaran C
On Monday 09 March 2015 04:10 PM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: > What is <<<...>>>? (info "(org) Radio targets")

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-09 Thread Sebastien Vauban
Hello Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Honestly, Org is already full of cryptic symbols, e.g., {{{...}}} > @@...@@, <<<>>>, <<...>>, and so on. This is not worse than the > rest of Org. What is <<<...>>>? PS- Not easy to search for that in the Org manual in Emacs: neither << nor <<< are

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-07 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > 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 pre

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-04 Thread Richard Lawrence
Avram Lyon writes: > I know that citeproc-js has tried to be engine-agnostic, so perhaps it can > work with Guile. It looks like I was too quick. Although the homepage makes it seem like Guile supports JS, the manual says: "ECMAScript was not the first non-Schemey language implemented by Guil

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Matt Price
On Mar 3, 2015 3:43 AM, "Nicolas Goaziou" wrote: > > Richard Lawrence 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] > > > >

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Avram Lyon
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:28 AM Richard Lawrence < richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > That sounds right. And I agree with Aaron that we probably don't want a > hard dependency on Zotero on the output side, so maybe citeproc-js is > the way to go. On the other hand, as Aaron points out, cite

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Aaron, Aaron Ecay writes: > Another tangentially related issue is what does (org-element-context) > return when point is in a multi-citation. It would be nice if it > returned the citation daughter, rather than the wrapping citations > element. This would make implementing goto-citation-at-

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Avram, Avram Lyon writes: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 7:16 PM Richard Lawrence < > richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >> Is there any reason to go with citeproc-java over a different CSL >> implementation, like citeproc-js or pandoc-citeproc? I am a little >> nervous about shelling out to

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> 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 shou

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Rasmus
Hi, Ken Mankoff writes: > On 2015-03-03 at 10:41, Rasmus wrote: >> ;; type is e.g. textcite, and citations look like >> ;; [[cite: common pre; pre0 @key0 post0; pre1 @key1 post1; common post ]] > > My Biblatex keys are currently Author:Four-words-from-title. I > don't think I'll ever have a

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Richard Lawrence
Rasmus writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: > >> Richard Lawrence writes: >> >>> Sorry, I may not have emphasized this enough, but in the grammar, I wrote: >>> >>> - A KEY optionally begins with `-', and obligatorily contains `@' or >>> `&' followed by a string of characters which begins wit

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Ken Mankoff
On 2015-03-03 at 10:41, Rasmus wrote: > ;; type is e.g. textcite, and citations look like > ;; [[cite: common pre; pre0 @key0 post0; pre1 @key1 post1; common post ]] My Biblatex keys are currently Author:Four-words-from-title. I don't think I'll ever have an author with "[" or "]" character

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Rasmus
Hi, > I’m not sure I’m happy about the citations/citation proposal (under any > assignment of different names to the pieces). A citations containing > only one citation is degenerate: it can never have a :prefix or :suffix > (these will rather be attached to the lone daughter citation). This is

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Rasmus, 2015ko martxoak 2an, Rasmus-ek idatzi zuen: > > Looks cool Aaron. Thanks! > > Aaron Ecay writes: > >> The first issue is that the parser includes trailing punctuation in >> “bare” @key citations. So the following does not work as expected (the >> :key includes the period): “This w

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Richard (again), 2015ko martxoak 2an, Richard Lawrence-ek idatzi zuen: > > Could we guess the backend from the file extension on the BIBLIOGRAPHY, > to keep things simple here? I don't use a citation manager, so I don't > know if this is possible for anything other than Bib(La)TeX. > > Also,

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Nicolas, 2015ko martxoak 2an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: > > Hello, > > Aaron Ecay writes: > >> I decided to go ahead and see what I could make of it. The result has >> been pushed to the org mode repo to the branch wip-cite-awe. (I didn’t >> want to push to your branch without asking,

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Richard, 2015ko martxoak 3an, Richard Lawrence-ek idatzi zuen: > > Aaron Ecay writes: > >> It would also be possible to just use an external program like >> citeproc-java. WDYT? > > I agree with Rasmus that using an external tool is the preferred way to > go here. I don't think introducin

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Rasmus
Rasmus writes: > Richard Lawrence writes: > >> Is there any reason to go with citeproc-java over a different CSL >> implementation, like citeproc-js or pandoc-citeproc? I am a little >> nervous about shelling out to something that sounds it like it requires >> loading the JVM... > > For the lon

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Rasmus
Richard Lawrence writes: > Is there any reason to go with citeproc-java over a different CSL > implementation, like citeproc-js or pandoc-citeproc? I am a little > nervous about shelling out to something that sounds it like it requires > loading the JVM... For the longest of time, mathtoweb.jar

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Rasmus
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Richard Lawrence writes: > >> Sorry, I may not have emphasized this enough, but in the grammar, I wrote: >> >> - A KEY optionally begins with `-', and obligatorily contains `@' or >> `&' followed by a string of characters which begins with a letter >> or `_',

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence 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 stru

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-03 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > Sorry, I may not have emphasized this enough, but in the grammar, I wrote: > > - A KEY optionally begins with `-', and obligatorily contains `@' or > `&' followed by a string of characters which begins with a letter > or `_', and may contain alphanumeric chara

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Avram Lyon
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 7:16 PM Richard Lawrence < richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Is there any reason to go with citeproc-java over a different CSL > implementation, like citeproc-js or pandoc-citeproc? I am a little > nervous about shelling out to something that sounds it like it requir

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Richard Lawrence
Aaron Ecay writes: > It would also be possible to just use an external program like > citeproc-java. WDYT? I agree with Rasmus that using an external tool is the preferred way to go here. I don't think introducing a dependency is really a problem, so long as we choose the right dependency -- L

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Richard Lawrence
Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> The first issue is that the parser includes trailing punctuation in >> “bare” @key citations. So the following does not work as expected (the >> :key includes the period): “This was demonstrated most recently by >> @Smith2015.” I’m not sure what the right approach is

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou 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

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> It would enable "complicated argument [@k1;@k2;@k3]", which is pretty >> nice. There's still no pre and post notes etc, only keys. > > Shortcuts are simple citations that ought to be available in most > back-ends. I don't see your example as a particularly straightforw

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Rasmus writes: > So (citation ⋯ :parts ((part ⋯) (part ⋯))). Fine with me. Other > possibilities are citation/entry and :entries. Or less nice: > citation/cite and :cites. I don't mind using :entries and `entry' either. I'll update "wip-cite" in a few days. > It would enable "complicated arg

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> Perhaps the difference is too subtle. Note that you would never deal with >> a `citation' other than through a mapping. > > Hmm. I still find `citations/citation' pair confusing. What about > `citation/part'? So (citation ⋯ :parts ((part ⋯) (part ⋯))). Fine with me.

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Rasmus writes: > Perhaps the difference is too subtle. Note that you would never deal with > a `citation' other than through a mapping. Hmm. I still find `citations/citation' pair confusing. What about `citation/part'? > Right, I was trying *to add* support for [@k1; ⋯;@kN]. Please don't. Let

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > However mixing `citations' and `citation' is confusing. I'd rather keep > the outer one as `citation'. What could go inside? Maybe `cite'? Perhaps the difference is too subtle. Note that you would never deal with a `citation' other than through a mapping. > Moreover,

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Rasmus 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 >

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
Looks cool Aaron. Thanks! Aaron Ecay writes: > The first issue is that the parser includes trailing punctuation in > “bare” @key citations. So the following does not work as expected (the > :key includes the period): “This was demonstrated most recently by > @Smith2015.” I’m not sure what the

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Richard Lawrence writes: > >> What's the next step here? Adding support for multiple references? >> multi-cites? `&'-keys? > > To support multi cites, we must first decide how the parsed will present > information, i.e., what are the properties in the following case >

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Hello, Aaron Ecay writes: > I decided to go ahead and see what I could make of it. The result has > been pushed to the org mode repo to the branch wip-cite-awe. (I didn’t > want to push to your branch without asking, but if you prefer I’ll do > that and delete my own.) This is not *my* branch.

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
Aaron Ecay writes: > Hi Rasmus, > > 2015ko martxoak 1an, Rasmus-ek idatzi zuen: >> >>> At this point, we probably need to implement a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword >>> (files) and BIBLIOGRAPHY_BACKEND (bibtex, zotero, jabref...) and provide >>> basic tools to handle citations in an Org document. >> >> P

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > What's the next step here? Adding support for multiple references? > multi-cites? `&'-keys? 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

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Rasmus, 2015ko martxoak 1an, Rasmus-ek idatzi zuen: > >> At this point, we probably need to implement a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword >> (files) and BIBLIOGRAPHY_BACKEND (bibtex, zotero, jabref...) and provide >> basic tools to handle citations in an Org document. > > Probably a CITATION_STYLE as well

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Tom, 2015ko martxoak 2an, "Thomas S. Dye"-ek idatzi zuen: > > I'm not able to understand the full implications of subtypes > vs. plists, so don't have a preferred solution along those lines. > > I brought this up in reaction to "This doesn't really work in org." > > I'm hoping for an Org mod

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Richard Lawrence
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Richard Lawrence writes: > >> That would be wonderful! Will you publish a patch or, better, a branch >> somewhere, even if it's not ready for master? > > I created a new branch: "wip-cite". It introduces support for @key > [@key] [cite:pre @key post] and [(cite):pre @k

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Aloha Aaron, Aaron Ecay writes: > Hi Tom, > > 2015ko martxoak 2an, "Thomas S. Dye"-ek idatzi zuen: >> >> Aloha Aaron, >> >> Aaron Ecay writes: >> >>> By way of illustration, Biblatex (AFAICT) doesn’t provide a possessive >>> citation command, which was mentioned by someone in this thread (or

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Tom, 2015ko martxoak 2an, "Thomas S. Dye"-ek idatzi zuen: > > Aloha Aaron, > > Aaron Ecay writes: > >> By way of illustration, Biblatex (AFAICT) doesn’t provide a possessive >> citation command, which was mentioned by someone in this thread (or its >> predecessor) as a desideratum. I’d exp

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Eric S Fraga
On Sunday, 1 Mar 2015 at 14:24, Thomas S. Dye wrote: > Rasmus writes: > >> Probably a CITATION_STYLE as well, e.g. "numeric", "author-year", etc. > > I suggest we keep Patrick Daly's distinction between "citation style" > and "citation mode". Hence, #+CITATION_MODE instead > of #+CITATION_STYLE.

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-02 Thread Rasmus
t...@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes: > Rasmus writes: > >> I have noticed tex4ht manages to do "proper" citations in odt. Perhaps we >> can study the resulting xml and how it adds a entries. Formatting is >> tricky... Perhaps only zotero is useful here. > > IIUC, tex4ht uses the dvi (device

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-01 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Aloha Aaron, Aaron Ecay writes: > By way of illustration, Biblatex (AFAICT) doesn’t provide a possessive > citation command, which was mentioned by someone in this thread (or its > predecessor) as a desideratum. I’d expect a savvy latex user to put in > their preamble: > > \newcommand{\citeposs

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-01 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Rasmus writes: > I have noticed tex4ht manages to do "proper" citations in odt. Perhaps we > can study the resulting xml and how it adds a entries. Formatting is > tricky... Perhaps only zotero is useful here. IIUC, tex4ht uses the dvi (device independent format of Knuth) file produced by LaT

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-01 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Rasmus writes: > Probably a CITATION_STYLE as well, e.g. "numeric", "author-year", etc. I suggest we keep Patrick Daly's distinction between "citation style" and "citation mode". Hence, #+CITATION_MODE instead of #+CITATION_STYLE. IIUC, there are three citation modes: 1. Harvard, author-dat

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-01 Thread Rasmus
Hi, Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> That would be wonderful! Will you publish a patch or, better, a branch >> somewhere, even if it's not ready for master? > > I created a new branch: "wip-cite". It introduces support for @key > [@key] [cite:pre @key post] and [(cite):pre @key post] constructs. Coo

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-03-01 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > That would be wonderful! Will you publish a patch or, better, a branch > somewhere, even if it's not ready for master? I created a new branch: "wip-cite". It introduces support for @key [@key] [cite:pre @key post] and [(cite):pre @key post] constructs. As a reminder,

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-27 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Stefan, Stefan Nobis writes: > Aaron Ecay writes: > >> I count roughly 50 commands in sections 3.7.1 – 3.7.6 of the >> biblatex user’s manual (version 2.9a of 24/06/2014). Some of these >> are quite esoteric, of course, but they are all provided. > > There are many commands (and even more pr

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-27 Thread Rasmus
Aaron Ecay writes: >> In this design, the potential explosion in subtypes has been pretty well >> kept in check. Does that make the design of BibLaTeX a good model for >> Org mode? > > I don’t know, but I suspect not. Latex allows users to create powerful > macros, but has relatively few built-

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-27 Thread Rasmus
Samuel Wales writes: >> If you don't allow a generalized link to follow a >> user-specified λs then you don't have a flexible syntax >> that you expressed desire for above. You'd still have to >> wait for somebody "upstream" to develop [color-start:⋯]. > > not sure why you are talking about link

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-27 Thread Stefan Nobis
Aaron Ecay writes: > I count roughly 50 commands in sections 3.7.1 – 3.7.6 of the > biblatex user’s manual (version 2.9a of 24/06/2014). Some of these > are quite esoteric, of course, but they are all provided. There are many commands (and even more private commands are possible) in order to hel

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-26 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Hi Aaron, Aaron Ecay writes: > Hi Thomas, > > 2015ko otsailak 25an, "Thomas S. Dye"-ek idatzi zuen: >> >> BibLaTeX has 6 standard "subtypes", which it calls "standard commands". >> >> A citation style can provide any number of specialized commands in >> addition to the 6 standard commands. >>

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-26 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Thomas, 2015ko otsailak 25an, "Thomas S. Dye"-ek idatzi zuen: > > BibLaTeX has 6 standard "subtypes", which it calls "standard commands". > > A citation style can provide any number of specialized commands in > addition to the 6 standard commands. > > The various citation styles that ship wi

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-25 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > Agreed. I'd like to see an implementation of a parser for the > [cite:...] part of the syntax as a first step. If we can get that far, > I'd guess that extending the parser to include either a subtype label or > {:key val ...} syntax will not be too difficult to do.

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-25 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Richard, 2015ko otsailak 20an, Richard Lawrence-ek idatzi zuen: > OK. I don't anticipate needing {:key val} myself anytime soon; I was > just trying to future-proof the syntax, and I don't want to lobby for it > if you feel strongly that this is problematic. > > If there are others (John? Aar

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-24 Thread Vaidheeswaran C
On Wednesday 25 February 2015 09:59 AM, Richard Lawrence wrote: Vaidheeswaran C writes: If you need help with ODT/JabRef integration, I am willing to lend a hand. (Only thing is) I would expect that someone hand-hold me wrt what one wants in the final exporter on a case-by-case basis. I woul

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-24 Thread Richard Lawrence
Vaidheeswaran C writes: > If you need help with ODT/JabRef integration, I am willing to lend a > hand. (Only thing is) I would expect that someone hand-hold me wrt > what one wants in the final exporter on a case-by-case basis. I would > rather build bottom-up, rather than top-down. That's gre

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-23 Thread Vaidheeswaran C
On Tuesday 17 February 2015 10:48 PM, Richard Lawrence wrote: Another, more serious reason is that I work in a field where some journals do not accept LaTeX submissions, or disprefer them; so having some citation support in ODT export is important.) You are lobbying for two things: 1. An impr

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-22 Thread Vaidheeswaran
On Monday 16 February 2015 09:49 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: [cite:subtype: whatever] Nicolas, if you could circulate a one-off patch that handles the above syntax I will bump it against the ODT backend and JabRef engine. I am waiting for the FSF representative to counter-sign my assignment

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-21 Thread Samuel Wales
hi richard, indeed i am not proposing changing any existing syntax. samuel

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-21 Thread Samuel Wales
hi rasmus! thanks for your comments. we are definitely not communicating about the same things. i do not even understand what you think i am proposing. :) if you get a chance to re-read my old posts on the subject, i think it might help? samuel

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-21 Thread Thomas S. Dye
Rasmus writes: > What Org desperately needs in terms of > reproducible, scientific writing is a rigorous, standard syntax. IMHO, the citation syntax discussion is more about making citations work correctly in the various backends and less about reproducible documents. Babel was a key developmen

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-21 Thread Rasmus
Richard Lawrence writes: > You're right that consistency in that syntax would be a good thing. > Moreover, Org already has syntax that looks a lot like plists in > #+ATTR_BACKEND lines and in Babel source block headers, so it seems > natural to adopt something like it for other sorts of objects.

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-21 Thread Rasmus
Hi Samuel, Samuel Wales writes: > On 2/20/15, Rasmus wrote: >> I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to not >> have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to >> avoid this situation: >> >> i just think the syntax we design should, if p

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-20 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Samuel, Samuel Wales writes: > basically, i am concerned about syntax creep in the big picture and > its downstream consequences. for example, it's more efficient to > support, and for the user to remember, a single general syntax than a > whole bunch of special syntaxes. In general, I shar

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-20 Thread Samuel Wales
hi rasmus, On 2/20/15, Rasmus wrote: > I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to not > have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to > avoid this situation: > > i just think the syntax we design should, if possible, be so general > t

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-20 Thread Rasmus
Samuel Wales writes: > if everybody is already thinking along the same lines, great. I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to not have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to avoid this situation: i just think the syntax we design sh

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-20 Thread Samuel Wales
On 2/20/15, Richard Lawrence wrote: > If there are others (John? Aaron? Samuel?) who think they really need > the {:key val} syntax *over and above* a subtype designation, please > speak up! i have no comments on citations per se. i just think the syntax we design should, if possible, be so gene

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-20 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Melanie, Melanie Bacou writes: > Just want to point out RMarkdown/Pandoc implementation of > bibliographies and citations here > http://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html Thanks for joining the discussion! Actually, the Pandoc/RMarkdown syntax was sort of the

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-20 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > AFAICT, the most advanced use of citations is Thomas', and he is > basically only using "subtype". So I'm pretty confident that 99.9% of > users will be fine with only these subtypes. > ... > Again, I don't think we need {:key val} at the moment. Also, it wo

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-19 Thread Melanie Bacou
Just want to point out RMarkdown/Pandoc implementation of bibliographies and citations here http://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html One useful option is a `csl: biomed-central.csl` option in the preamble. --Mel. On 2/19/2015 12:06 PM, Richard Lawrence wrote:

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-19 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > Ah, OK, I think I see...so this is basically the second option, with > users interpreting subtypes via a separate protocol, instead of via > filters. Right? Correct. > What about this concern, then? > >>> But that kind of situation is exactly what the extra-info part

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-19 Thread Richard Lawrence
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I wasn't clear. Subtype should be interpreted by back-ends means it has > no impact on syntax. However a user should be able to dictate what the > back-end should do with it, much like `org-add-link-type'. > > A new library, e.g. "org-cite.el" would provide all the tool

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Rasmus
Hi, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Richard Lawrence writes: >> We have already seen a couple of examples in this thread of properties >> that one might want to specify in a backend-agnostic way: >> - special-case capitalization >> - user-defined type/command/label/etc. >> >> Other things one mig

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Rasmus
Aaron Ecay writes: > Hi Nicolas, > > 2015ko otsailak 18an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: >> >> I think we should postpone the idea of attributes for object, as it gets >> in the way of the discussion. IMO, >> >> [cite/subtype: ...] >> >> is all we need, syntax-wise. > > The question of attrib

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread John Kitchin
I was thinking the same thing as Aaron ;) What could one do with a "link-like" object with arbitrary attributes/properties... Hmm... maybe this idea: http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2015/02/05/Extending-the-org-mode-link-syntax-with-attributes/ without the kludgy parsing? It will be so confu

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Samuel Wales
hi aaron, On 2/18/15, Aaron Ecay wrote: > Do you mean how the syntax and implementation of links was used to > support a new org feature completely unrelated to web URLs, namely > citations? ;) heh heh. :] that applies to the outer syntax only. i mean, for example, plists vs. something less

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Samuel, 2015ko otsailak 18an, Samuel Wales-ek idatzi zuen: > > i have a silly question: whatever syntax we choose, will it be able to > be used, in the future, for new org features nobody has thought of > yet, that are unrelated to citations? Do you mean how the syntax and implementation of li

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Aaron Ecay
Hi Nicolas, 2015ko otsailak 18an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: > > I think we should postpone the idea of attributes for object, as it gets > in the way of the discussion. IMO, > > [cite/subtype: ...] > > is all we need, syntax-wise. The question of attributes for objects arose out of the de

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Richard Lawrence writes: > I know that this is technically easy to handle from the backend's > perspective. But I have a concern related to Stefan's: > > Stefan Nobis writes: > >> The drawback is that now subtype is hard or even impossible to vary >> for different backends. Therefore I would s

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Samuel Wales
[disclaimer: i do not currently use citations, so i have no stake in citation syntax per se, just a tendency to ask highly generic silly questions.]

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Samuel Wales
i have a silly question: whatever syntax we choose, will it be able to be used, in the future, for new org features nobody has thought of yet, that are unrelated to citations? my preference is to forestall future syntax creep, enhance consistency, and amortize the effort in supporting a syntax [in

Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

2015-02-18 Thread Richard Lawrence
Hi Nicolas and all, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Richard Lawrence writes: > >> Actually, your post has convinced me that it may be worth allowing some >> explicit name for a type in the [cite: ...] part of the syntax, although >> I am still leery about what this would mean for non-LaTeX backends.

  1   2   >