[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

From: Nicolas Goaziou
Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 00:56:19 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)


address@hidden writes:

> Bruce has already sent a link to Pandoc's org-mode Reader where you
> can find the citation modes. The standard (markdown) implementation
> can be found here:
> https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/blob/f2b337768e95c8903f65e597f7d8cd81938dacc3/src/Text/Pandoc/Readers/Markdown.hs

Thank you.

> Anyway, currently there are basically three modes:
> - NormalCitation
> - SuppressAuthor
> - AuthorInText


> So:
> [@doe] => NormalCitation
> [-@doe] => SuppressAuthor
> @doe argues ... => AuthorInText
> -@doe [23] => SuppressAuthor

Let's assume Org implements SuppressAuthor as "-@doe", so far it has:

| Syntax                    | Mode                            | Sample output |
| @doe or [cite:@doe]       | AuthorInText                    | Doe (2020)    |
| -@doe or [cite:-@doe]     | AuthorInText + SuppressAuthor   | (2020)        |
| [@doe] or [(cite):@doe]   | NormalCitation                  | (Doe, 2020)   |
| [-@doe] or [(cite):-@doe] | NormalCitation + SuppressAuthor | (2020)        |

So, we could mix suppress author with some other style, although this
seems useless for the time being.

Current syntax is not great because it is ad-hoc, and not very
future-proof, if new modes appear. Also, the "(cite)" key is a bit
mouthful, "citep" might have been prettier. Anyway, is it complete

Also, there is some ambiguity between modes applying reference-wise,
i.e., "suppress author", and modes applying to the whole reference,
i.e., NormalCitation and AuthorInText.

Therefore, I'm wondering: has the following any meaning?

  [cite: -@doe; @foo]
  [(cite): -@doe; @foo]

> Depending on CSL's future development there might well be other
> citations modes. I personally think there's much to learn from
> biblatex, but that's a different debate...

As a related node, from Biblatex, we may also need, e.g., [(Cite):...],
but this was rejected for some reason a long time ago.


Nicolas Goaziou

reply via email to

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