[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

From: denis . maier . lists
Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:09:02 +0200 (CEST)

> Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> hat am 13. April 2020 00:19 geschrieben:
> Hello,
> address@hidden writes:
> > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and
> > concise, but why limit this to only one character?
> Becauseā€¦ it is good and concise? ;)
> > What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps
> > "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"?
> Note the latter introduces an ambiguity: [cite:see: @doe was right!].
> Fixing it requires two colons in default cite prefix: [cite::@doe].
> I don't think we want this.
> The former doesn't have this bias.

Ok, ambiguity is not good. So we need something else. (As in the other message: 
cite/note 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.
> > What do you think?
> 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?

What about allowing both, just like most command line tools have short and long 
options (e.g., -o and --open)?


reply via email to

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