Am Dienstag, dem 12. Oktober 2021 schrieb András Simonyi:
> No, it's citeproc-el which is supposed to determine whether the passed
> locator string represents single vs multiple references, using § vs §§
> shouldn't make a difference, because they simply signal that the label
> is "section".
I
Dear All,
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 07:43, M. ‘quintus’ Gülker
wrote:
> Das ist ein Test [cite:@saenger2013gsr § 12 Rn. 488].
>
> gives:
>
> Saenger, Gesellschaftsrecht, 2. Aufl. (2013), §§ 12 Rn. 488
[...]
> This is a little confusing. Maybe an error on my part? Do I need to
> signal
Am Dienstag, dem 12. Oktober 2021 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> I mapped both § and §§ to "section". Hopefully, the issue is now
> completely fixed.
Nearly :-). Thank you so much for your hard work so far! It is
incredible to see how this develops.
With »Org mode version 9.5
M. ‘quintus’ Gülker writes:
> Long story short: I do not think that it is a bug in locales-de-DE.xml,
> and I guess Pandoc proves my point here. Please map § to "section"
> instead of "paragraph" in org-cite, i.e., do it the way Pandoc does
> it.
I mapped both § and §§ to "section". Hopefully,
Am Montag, dem 11. Oktober 2021 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
> Looks like § is currently mapped to the same as ¶: "paragraph", which
> is indeed incorrect.
>
> https://github.com/citation-style-language/locales/blob/0cc3885f6100e26ac6c6d103efa6f3d7195fd21b/locales-de-DE.xml#L210
This is interesting.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:57 PM M. ‘quintus’ Gülker
wrote:
> As explained, the positioning is now correct. However, instead of the
> section § sign it now has two pilcrow signs ¶¶. It should be just one
> sign, and it should be a section sign rather than a pilcrow one.
Looks like § is currently
Am Montag, dem 11. Oktober 2021 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> Indeed. The "fix" I introduced was a mistake. I pushed a new fix.
> I think the initial issue is solved now. Could you confirm it?
Thank you so far -- we are getting closer. Now at »Org mode version 9.5
(release_9.5-102-gd0b557 @
Hello,
M. ‘quintus’ Gülker writes:
> Now it’s getting wild.
Indeed. The "fix" I introduced was a mistake. I pushed a new fix.
I think the initial issue is solved now. Could you confirm it?
Thank you.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
Hello,
András Simonyi writes:
> looks like an Org (oc-csl) side locator parsing problem to me, because
> using the alternative [cite:@saenger2013gsr para. 12 Rn. 488] form I
> seem to get the correct result. Can it be a regex matching problem
> with the paragraph symbols?
You're right. I
Am Sonntag, dem 10. Oktober 2021 schrieb András Simonyi:
> looks like an Org (oc-csl) side locator parsing problem to me, because
> using the alternative [cite:@saenger2013gsr para. 12 Rn. 488] form I
> seem to get the correct result. Can it be a regex matching problem
> with the paragraph
Dear All,
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 22:11, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> Then, this may be a bug in Citeproc library itself. I suggest to report
> it upstream.
looks like an Org (oc-csl) side locator parsing problem to me, because
using the alternative [cite:@saenger2013gsr para. 12 Rn. 488] form I
Am Sonntag, dem 10. Oktober 2021 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> Then, this may be a bug in Citeproc library itself. I suggest to report
> it upstream.
Done: https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-el/issues/57
-quintus
--
Dipl.-Jur. M. Gülker | https://mg.guelker.eu | PGP: Siehe Webseite
Hello,
M. ‘quintus’ Gülker writes:
> I however do not think the problem is related to the NBSP. I just
> retried without it, and the § sign is still pulled towards the front.
> I also retried with current Git (Org mode version 9.5
> (release_9.5-93-gd87250 @
Am Sonntag, dem 10. Oktober 2021 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> On the contrary, feedback on citations is very much welcome. This is
> a new features, and as such, has some rough edges.
Thanks for bearing with me.
> It is a bug. You use a non-breaking space between the locator and the
> number. I
Hello,
M. ‘quintus’ Gülker writes:
> apologies for my frequent e-mails. It’s just that I am evaluating the
> citations facility for me.
On the contrary, feedback on citations is very much welcome. This is
a new features, and as such, has some rough edges.
> This time it’s about non-page
Dear all,
apologies for my frequent e-mails. It’s just that I am evaluating the
citations facility for me.
This time it’s about non-page locators. Take the following document:
#+TITLE: Test
#+AUTHOR: testauthor
#+LANGUAGE: de
#+bibliography: /tmp/mwe/mwe.bib
#+cite_export:
16 matches
Mail list logo
