[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wip-cite status question and feedback
From: |
Joost Kremers |
Subject: |
Re: wip-cite status question and feedback |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:10:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.3.10; emacs 27.0.90 |
On Mon, Apr 13 2020, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
address@hidden 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, this might be
better.
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.
62 combinations might sound like a lot, but if you want your cite
commands to be mnemonic, you'll run out of options much more
quickly.
This is a conciseness versus readability problem, not a
technical one,
as long as we do not allow too much, from a parser point of
view.
I have no strong opinion on the topic. It would be more valuable
to hear
from actual citations users. What would they prefer?
Not sure if my opinion counts, given that I mainly use LaTeX +
biblatex to write my texts, but I would definitely allow more than
one character. The more common commands (=citep=, =citet=) can
still use a single character (and thus remain concise), but for
less common commands, the ability to have more descriptive names
is to be preferred. Imagine looking at a document you wrote a few
years back and having to figure out what =citeQ= or =cite7= was
meant for again, or finding that =citeF= was changed from
=\fullcite= to =\footfullcite= because at some point the
developers figured the latter would be used more often.
I don't think it's necessary to use a dash (or any other
character) in longer cite commands, though. =citeintext= isn't
that much more difficult to read than =cite-intext=. (Biblatex
does just fine without dashes, and there's always camelCase if
you're so inclined.)
1. For the bibliography:
#+bibliography: something.bib
(Could this be a list containing multiple files?)
Multiple keywords may be more appropriate, particularly if you
need to
spell out absolute file names.
Org can provide a function listing all of them anyway.
Yes, and please make it a public (one-dash) function. :-)
2. Placing the bibliography with:
#+bibliography: here
(Ideally, it would be possible to have this multiple times,
perhaps
with some filters, like printing only the works of a certain
author,
or with certain keywords, or so. But that's, of course
something for
later...)
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.
As someone already suggested, using something like
=#+printbibliography:= would work. And if that is too
biblatex-like, you could instead opt for e.g.
=#+list-of-references:=. (Output formats such as HTML or epub
don't involve any printing anyway, so... ;-)
--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, (continued)
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Nicolas Goaziou, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Stefan Nobis, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Denis Maier, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback,
Joost Kremers <=
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Stefan Nobis, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Richard Lawrence, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Joost Kremers, 2020/04/15
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Richard Lawrence, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Richard Lawrence, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Denis Maier, 2020/04/18
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/18