Re: [O] Should wip-cite branch be merged to master?

[András Simonyi]

Dear All,

thanks for bringing this up. I definitely agree that it'd be too early to merge
the wip-cite branch. In fact, having added (experimental) support for it in
citeproc-org I've been planning to propose some changes/extensions to the syntax
but I wanted to wait until citeproc-org and citeproc-el become available as
MELPA packages which still isn't the case (citeproc-el is already there but
citeproc-org still needs some work before I can submit it). Anyhow, since the
topic has come up, here is how I see the situation (sorry for the length):

>From the citeproc-el/CSL point of view, the current syntax is perfect with the
notable exception of the provided citation commands. Currently only `cite' and
`(cite)' are supported, where the latter seems to be intended to provide the
parenthetical version of a basic citation, e.g. in an author-date style `cite'
would produce something like `Smith 2018` while `(cite)' `(Smith 2018)'. Now I
think that for author-date styles `cite' should produce the parenthetical
version and that `(cite)' probably shouldn't be among the commands at all. The
main reason is that most citation processors (biblatex, CSL processors etc.)
support not only author-date citation styles but footnote-based ones as well,
and the concept of a `parenthetical citation' doesn't really make sense for the
latter. A more abstract characterization which is applicable to all styles is
that normally references are not part of the main text, they are set off either
by brackets or in a note. Since this is the most frequent, basic form, I think
this the one which should be produced by the `cite' syntax, that is, when used
in normal text `cite' should produce something like `(Smith 2018)' for
author-date styles and a note with the reference for note styles.

In addition to `cite', the following additional variants would be very
useful, and would probably cover the majority of use-cases:

- "bare cite": the same as cite, but doesn't separate the reference from
   the main text (no brackets/note);

- "suppress author": removes the author's name from the citation.

- "textual cite": includes the author's name in the main text but sets
  off the rest of the citation.

A proposal for the syntax of the additional forms: bare cite could be indicated
by a `-' suffix, suppress author by a `*' and textual cite by a `t' resulting in
the variants

| command       | result in author-date styles |
|---------------+------------------------------|
| cite          | (Smith 2017)                 |
| citet         | Smith (2017)                 |
| cite-         | Smith 2017                   |
| cite*         | (2017)                       |
| cite*-/cite-* | 2017                         |

(omitting some combinatorial possibilities that don't make practical sense). 

It would be a nice extra to also provide commands for adding an item to the list
of references without actually citing it (`nocite' command), and for adding
literal cites (that provide the full text of the citation, and whose sole
function is to let the processor know that a citation occurred at a certain
location) but these are obviously not so important as the ones in the above
table.

The citeproc-el wiki contains a bit more information about this proposal:

https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-el/wiki/Citation-types-and-commands

I'd be glad to hear your views regarding these issues.

best regards,

András

  >> There is a package which support wip-cite:
  >> https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-org, should wip-cite
  >> branch be merged to master now?

  > Merging wip-cite branch with master, and integration of citeproc-org
  > into Org core, could be discussed with the author of the library, and,
  > of course, with anyone interested in using the @cite syntax. For
  > example, I need to know if that syntax, along with citeproc-org, covers
  > enough use-cases for citations, if it brings more value than using,
  > e.g., Org Ref, which already exists, how it could be improved, etc.

  > I have the feeling that it is a bit early for Org 9.2. Anyway, I'm
  > Cc'ing András and John for their opinion about it. I'd love to hear from
  > everyone involved in the last round of discussion about the subject,
  > too.



  > Regards,

  > --
  > Nicolas Goaziou