[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Citation syntax: Underscore MUST(?) be allowed in cite keys?

From: Richard Lawrence
Subject: Re: [O] Citation syntax: Underscore MUST(?) be allowed in cite keys?
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 18:56:56 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)

Hi Tom and all,

address@hidden (Thomas S. Dye) writes:

> As I see it, the choice boils down to the relative benefit of citation
> shortcuts vs. the limitation of requiring authors to configure the
> citation manager so it doesn't produce a key ending in punctuation (or
> your solution that uses different regexps for full citations and
> shortcuts).

Yes, that's my understanding of the situation.  I would just add that it
may not even be *possible* to configure how some citation managers
generate keys.  So if there are citation managers that put punctuation
at the end of keys in `normal' cases, that's something serious to

Another variable to keep in mind here is that we don't have to
`bless'/support every citation manager.  If a citation manager puts
punctuation at the end of keys, and doesn't allow configuring that
behavior or makes it difficult, that's a reason not to bless it, in my
opinion.  But my opinion probably shouldn't count for much on this
point, because I don't use a citation manager myself (I use org-bibtex),
and I write my own keys.

What citation managers are people on this list actually using?  It would
be very helpful to get an idea of what is actually needed before we make
any changes to the syntax of keys.

> Richard and Stefan both see keys ending in punctuation marks as corner
> cases, so the burden imposed on the author to configure the citation
> manager is relatively infrequent.  

Yes, that is my sense.  At any rate, I would like to see clear examples
that are not corner cases before we throw out the shortcut syntax,
because I personally think it is useful and readable.  A large number of
my own citations could be handled by just the shortcut syntax, I think,
so I'd be sad to see it go away without good reason.

> At this point I think the benefit of citation shortcuts is relatively
> modest and the limitation of requiring authors to ensure keys don't end
> in punctuation potentially onerous.  On balance, I think strong
> consideration should be given to the option of not using shortcuts.

I don't disagree, but I think there is an empirical question that needs
to be answered here: within the keys people actually use, how many do
not conform to the syntax?  Of those that don't, do they represent
`normal' cases or not?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]