[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:43:22 +0100 |
Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:
> I am OK with this if it is important, though I am a little hesitant.
I don't know if it is important. Just thinking out loud.
> In the last thread, you expressed concern that we not have too much
> variation after the opening `[' for performance reasons, which is why I
> kept all the (non-simple) citations to `[cite: ...]'.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Variations after the opening "[" are OK as long
as they are contained in a _fixed_ set. Of course, the smaller the set
the better.
However, a customizable "cite" keyword (à la `org-add-link-type') is
a no-go. If this is really needed, I already suggested
[cite:subtype: ...]
where "subtype" can be associated to any number of attributes, at user's
discretion.
> Unless you have changed your mind, I assume this means we should try not
> to have very many options for this position. Expressing capitalization
> here would mean there are now four options, two of which are devoted to
> expressing capitalization. Is capitalization important enough to
> introduce the complexity for it at *this* crucial syntactic position?
Again, I don't know if capitalization is important enough, but the added
complexity in this case is negligible. Anyhow, I am not wedded to the
idea.
> If we're trying to keep the number of variants after `[' low, we should
> think carefully about what is important enough to go there. (I think
> parenthetical vs. in-text does meet that bar, but I am not sure
> special-case capitalization does.)
OK.
> Aesthetically, this feels a little *too* much like BibLaTeX to me.
I didn't know BibLaTeX used it at the time I suggested the idea.
I didn't know BibLaTeX was deemed as aesthetically wrong either (why is
it so?).
Regards,
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, (continued)
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Nicolas Goaziou, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Aaron Ecay, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Nicolas Goaziou, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Aaron Ecay, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Nicolas Goaziou, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Stefan Nobis, 2015/02/16
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/16
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal,
Nicolas Goaziou <=
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/16
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Thomas S. Dye, 2015/02/16
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/16
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, John Kitchin, 2015/02/15
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Eric S Fraga, 2015/02/16