Re: [O] Citations, continued

[John Kitchin]

My only concern is that it remains possible to support this relatively
full set of citation options on export:

(defcustom org-ref-cite-types
  '("cite" "nocite" ;; the default latex cite commands
    ;; natbib cite commands, 
http://ctan.unixbrain.com/macros/latex/contrib/natbib/natnotes.pdf
    "citet" "citet*" "citep" "citep*"
    "citealt" "citealt*" "citealp" "citealp*"
    "citenum" "citetext"
    "citeauthor" "citeauthor*"
    "citeyear" "citeyear*"
    "Citet" "Citep" "Citealt" "Citealp" "Citeauthor"
    ;; biblatex commands
    ;; 
http://ctan.mirrorcatalogs.com/macros/latex/contrib/biblatex/doc/biblatex.pdf
    "Cite"
    "parencite" "Parencite"
    "footcite" "footcitetext"
    "textcite" "Textcite"
    "smartcite" "Smartcite"
    "cite*" "parencite*" "supercite"
    "autocite" "Autocite" "autocite*" "Autocite*"
    "Citeauthor*"
    "citetitle" "citetitle*"
    "citedate" "citedate*"
    "citeurl"
    "fullcite" "footfullcite"
    ;; "volcite" "Volcite" cannot support the syntax
    "notecite" "Notecite"
    "pnotecite" "Pnotecite"
    "fnotecite"
    ;; multicites. Very limited support for these.
    "cites" "Cites" "parencites" "Parencites"
    "footcites" "footcitetexts"
    "smartcites" "Smartcites" "textcites" "Textcites"
    "supercites" "autocites" "Autocites"
    ;; for the bibentry package
    "bibentry"
    )
  "List of citation types known in org-ref"
  :type '(repeat :tag "List of citation types" string)
  :group 'org-ref)

which we are currently able to do. I never type any of those in, org-ref
does it automatically from a key selection tool.

>From a user point of view, these to me look almost identical to link
syntax, which could be confusing.

 [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY]
 [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS]

I don't see the payoff in adding it. you can already have those as
links, and export to pandoc syntac trivial in the first case. The
payoff only comes from item 4 in the list below, with a nested citation,
which I have never seen in the wild in scientific publications. Perhaps
it is more common in other fields.

I don't personally find the pandoc notation easier to understand, eg
address@hidden and address@hidden

vs

\cite{item} and \citeauthor{item}

The congruence you mention is not relevant for superscripted references,
there are no brackets or parentheses in that case.



Richard Lawrence writes:

> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I just want to say thanks for continuing the conversation, by the way:
> I know this thread has gotten long, but I'm glad people are still
> paying attention, and Nicolas, your opinion counts for a lot.
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> What about the following set?
>>
>>  bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through
>>  subscript superscript underline superscript
>
> That would work fine for me in prefixes and suffixes.
>
>> To be clear, much like Rasmus, I don't like much in-text citations
>> syntax above. Actually, I would suggest to mimic footnotes, and handle
>> in-text citations with the same syntax as named footnotes.
>>
>> Using the example from Erik Hetzner in the same thread, what about:
>>
>>   1. [cite:@item1] says blah.
>>   2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>   3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>>   4. [cite:@item1: address@hidden p. 30; see also @item3] says blah.
>>   5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3].
>>   6. Another one [cite::see @item1 p. 34-35].
>>   7. Citation with a suffix and locator [cite:: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and 
>> nowhere else].
>>   8. A citation without locators [cite:: @item3].
>>   9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else].
>>   10. Like a citation without author: [cite:: address@hidden, and now Doe
>>       with a locator [cite:: address@hidden p. 44].
>>
>> explicitly, syntax would be either
>>
>>   [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY]
>>
>> or
>>
>>   [cite:IN-TEXT-KEY?:SPACE* CITATIONS]
>>
>> where CITATIONS is any number of
>>
>>   PREFIX? KEY SUFFIX?
>>
>> separated with semi-colons.
>>
>> It is slightly more verbose, but also more regular and faster to parse.
>
> I guess I could live with this, but to be honest, I much prefer the Pandoc 
> way.
>
> The Pandoc syntax has a nice congruence between the source file and
> the output: if a cite key is inside the brackets in the source, the
> reference is inside the brackets in the output, and if it's outside in
> the source, it's outside in the output.  This convention seems
> natural, easy to remember, and very readable -- at least if, like me
> (and I would guess many others), you use author names in cite keys.
>
> By contrast, I'm used to thinking of footnote labels as having no
> direct correlation with the output, so it seems incongruent to use the
> analogous position in citation syntax to represent in-text citations.
>
> So as an author, I prefer the Pandoc way, but I understand there are
> other considerations.  If we must have the tag for performance
> reasons, I would prefer using two different tags to represent the two
> cases; I suggest borrowing (from LaTeX's natbib package) "citet" for
> in-text and "citep" for bracketed citations , but I don't really care
> as long as they're easy to type, and it's easy to change one to the
> other.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Best,
> Richard

--
Professor John Kitchin
Doherty Hall A207F
Department of Chemical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-7803
@johnkitchin
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu