Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Mon, Apr 13 2020, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes: What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"? [...] The simple syntax is great for most cases, but if you want to support some of those not so common biblatex commands,

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

> Nicolas Goaziou hat am 13. April 2020 00:19 > geschrieben: > > > Hello, > > denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes: > > > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and > > concise, but why limit this to only one character? > > Because… it is good and concise? ;) > > >

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:34 AM Stefan Nobis wrote: > [Placing bibliography with "#+bibliography: here"] > > It is smart, but I'm not sure I like using the same keyword for two > > different things. OTOH, I don't have a better idea. > > I personally also dislike one keyword for completely

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:19 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes: > > > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and > > concise, but why limit this to only one character? > > Because… it is good and concise? ;) > > > What about allowing something

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Alphanumeric suffix provides 62 combinations, which should hopefully > be enough for any citation back-end out there (I'm looking at you > biblatex). It's not terribly readable, tho, as you point out. I second that. Some of the many BibLaTeX commands are due to

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes: > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and > concise, but why limit this to only one character? Because… it is good and concise? ;) > What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps > "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"?

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Nicolas Goaziou hat am 12. April 2020 17:32 geschrieben: > > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:02 AM Nicolas Goaziou > > wrote: > > >> Yes, and a "t-styled" citation would be: > >> > >> [citet:see;@doe2020;@doe2019] > >> > >> Barring the prefix, the syntax of

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:58 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > In that case, since it was a typo, I would do as pandoc does: treat it > > as a string. > > Do you mean: keep all spaces wherever they may be? No, I thought your point about auto-filling was a good one.

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

"Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > In that case, since it was a typo, I would do as pandoc does: treat it > as a string. Do you mean: keep all spaces wherever they may be?

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: ... > > So in other words, the value of an affix would be a trimmed string? > > That was a typo. But that's a good question anyway. > > Generally speaking, I'd rather avoid any magic, so the parser should not >

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

"Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:02 AM Nicolas Goaziou > wrote: >> Yes, and a "t-styled" citation would be: >> >> [citet:see;@doe2020;@doe2019] >> >> Barring the prefix, the syntax of the citation does not change wrt to >> "wip-cite" branch. However, this is enough to be

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

I'm going to split off the syntax part of your email, Nicholas, for quick comment. I need to think more about the other questions. On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:02 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Finally, what does the above example look like when, say, there are > > two cites (say @doe2020 and

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

> I'm just a little confused here, particularly on the last item. Why > would one set a style per bib file? No idea. The need exists though: This is a natural following step. Does

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hi, On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:38 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Anyway, Org cite syntax should: > - fully support CSL, > - allow changing globally style of cites, > - be extensible enough to support « advanced » citation markup (NatBib, > Biblatex…), > - degrade gracefully when using less

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > I'm not 100% sure, but I think citet meets that goal also, so Denis' > suggestion might work. I hadn't realised that AuthorInText was a Citeproc(-hs) interpretation of CSL. Anyway, Org cite syntax should: - fully support CSL, - allow changing globally style of

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:43 PM wrote: ... > Well, that depends on your target. If you aim for CSL than that's already > fairly complete. (Even it's more than complete since the current CSL > specification only knows normal citations. Suppressing authors is done by > calling applications, and

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hi, > Let's assume Org implements SuppressAuthor as "-@doe", so far it has: > > | Syntax| Mode| Sample output > | > |---+-+---| > | @doe or [cite:@doe] | AuthorInText

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: [snip] > Sounds like a plan. Let me summarize it a bit : > > 1. [ ] Finalize Org citation syntax. It is mostly good, but we need to >decide about the following points: > >- [ ] Should it include both "(cite):" and "cite:", i.e., does

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes: > Bruce has already sent a link to Pandoc's org-mode Reader where you > can find the citation modes. The standard (markdown) implementation > can be found here: >

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:30 AM wrote: ... > [Para [Cite [Citation {citationId = "doe", citationPrefix = [], > citationSuffix = [], citationMode = NormalCitation, citationNoteNum = 0, > citationHash = 0}] [Str "[@doe]"]] I just wanted to add a quick note on this, in case anyone is wondering:

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hi, very good to see these things are getting discussed again. (Back then, I have been following the citation syntax discussion from a distance rather then participating actively, so that's my first post here.) It would be great if Org had a closer integration with a Citeproc. This would be a

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Bruce D'Arcus writes: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:38 AM Albert Krewinkel wrote: >> Bruce D'Arcus writes: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou >> > wrote: >> >> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: >> >> >> >> > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values, >> >> >

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:17 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Hello, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > Another question on the syntax. > > > > Does it support something like this in the pandoc syntax? > > > > Doe [-@doe19] argues ... > > No it doesn't. That seems reasonable to include. I add it to

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > Another question on the syntax. > > Does it support something like this in the pandoc syntax? > > Doe [-@doe19] argues ... No it doesn't. That seems reasonable to include. I add it to my TODO list. > The minus sign signals to suppress the author rendering, so

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Another question on the syntax. Does it support something like this in the pandoc syntax? Doe [-@doe19] argues ... The minus sign signals to suppress the author rendering, so that you end up with: Doe (2019) ... instead of: Doe (Doe, 2019) I know latex works differently, but this is simple,

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:30 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote: ... > FWIW, I asked about this on the CSL developers subforum, and got a > very helpful reply from Denis Maier, first discussing the pandoc > citation model and parsing, and then the org citation syntax and > global affixes it supports. > >

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:38 AM Albert Krewinkel wrote: > > Hello, > > Bruce D'Arcus writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou > > wrote: > >> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > >> > >> > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values, > >> > basically; not plain

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, Bruce D'Arcus writes: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: >> >> > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values, >> > basically; not plain text strings. >> >> OK, but it is enough for Org to feed a CSL processor with,

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:39 AM John Kitchin wrote: > If I were to dream, each cite would have text-properties that include the key > (so it is easy to get the key at point and do something with info in the > corresponding database), and a help-echo function that could be user-defined, > a

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

org-ref relies very heavily on the link functionality to provide actions on a cite, e.g. to open the pdf, or url, allow sorting, to change the cite color when it is a bad key, etc If the new syntax also has that capability, e.g. through font-lock, then I would consider integrating it into org-ref,

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Hello, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values, > > basically; not plain text strings. > > OK, but it is enough for Org to feed a CSL processor with, e.g., > > key->

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values, > basically; not plain text strings. OK, but it is enough for Org to feed a CSL processor with, e.g., key-> "@doe99" prefix -> "see " suffix -> ", pp. 33-35" Then CSL processor

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Wed, Apr 08 2020, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:13 PM Joost Kremers wrote: What would help, BTW, is if there's an easy way to find out what the bibliography file or files are that are associated with the current Org buffer. I guess the simplest and most flexible option

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:13 PM Joost Kremers wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07 2020, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > While I of course can't speak for John, I would hope and expect > > org > > ref to support the new syntax. > > > > I would hope and expect the same of other packages (like ebib) > > that > > use

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

On Tue, Apr 07 2020, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: While I of course can't speak for John, I would hope and expect org ref to support the new syntax. I would hope and expect the same of other packages (like ebib) that use their own custom syntax. Ebib maintainer here. I would certainly include

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Sorry for the typos, and also a more important mistake: a didn't mean citeproc-hs, but citeproc-rs. https://github.com/cormacrelf/citeproc-rs On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > Thank you for this thorough reply, Nicholas! > > See below. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:51 PM

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Thank you for this thorough reply, Nicholas! See below. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:51 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Hello, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > Hi everyone; first post. > > Welcome! > > > I see from the archive there was an encouraging thread from April of 2018 > >

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > Hi everyone; first post. Welcome! > I see from the archive there was an encouraging thread from April of 2018 > > (so, two years ago) that seemed to suggest merging to master was close, >

wip-cite status question and feedback

Hi everyone; first post. >From what I can tell, there was a lot of activity here a few years back to define org citation link support, which was reflected in what seems to be a fairly developed wip-cite branch of the git repo. But that stalled somewhere, and we still have diverse tools, using

<    1   2