[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal
From: |
Thomas S. Dye |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:57:44 -1000 |
Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:
> I welcome feedback, comments, criticisms, and objections on any point.
> However, since we've already had a long discussion about this, I
> respectfully request that we try to keep this thread focused. To that
> end, I suggest:
>
> 1) If you have criticisms or objections, please try to indicate
> whether you think they are `substantive' (e.g., you see a problem
> that would prevent you from using this syntax, or prevent Org from
> implementing it) or not (e.g., you would prefer a slightly
> different but equivalent way of expressing something).
>
> 2) If you wish to express an opinion about the proposal without
> offering further comments, let us know by just replying with +1
> (meaning you'd like to see this syntax, or something reasonably
> similar to it, be adopted), 0, or -1 (meaning you'd prefer not to
> see this syntax or anything similar to it adopted).
0
A syntax that relegates citation commands to an extension that might not
export properly in future versions of Org mode isn't useful in my work.
All the best,
Tom
--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com
- [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/14
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/14
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal,
Thomas S. Dye <=
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/17
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/17
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Matt Price, 2015/02/17
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/17
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Thomas S. Dye, 2015/02/17