Bruce D'Arcus writes: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:38 AM Albert Krewinkel <alb...@zeitkraut.de> wrote: >> Bruce D'Arcus writes: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 5:32 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> >> > wrote: >> >> "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > Note that in CSL processors, the locators are meaningful key-values, >> >> > basically; not plain text strings. >> >> >> >> OK, but it is enough for Org to feed a CSL processor with, e.g., >> >> >> >> key -> "@doe99" >> >> prefix -> "see " >> >> suffix -> ", pp. 33-35" >> >> >> >> Then CSL processor does its job to extract whatever information it >> >> needs. Am I right? >> > >> > On this, I would defer to András and Albert (who maintains the pandoc >> > org code, I believe). >> >> Yes, that is correct. Pandoc parses `prefix` and `suffix` as markup, so >> the pp in ", /pp/. 33-35." would be italicized. > > And Pandoc parses that "suffix" into two parts: the locators, and the > suffix proper.
"Pandoc", as used above, is probably meant to include pandoc-citeproc, the CSL processor shipped with pandoc. Pandoc itself does not process the prefix/suffix values further, but leaves that to pandoc-citeproc: https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/blob/d7eb5fd15980ba40d7bffd6d2f031a229881668f/src/Text/CSL/Pandoc.hs#L471 > In this example, from the CSL perspective, there is no suffix; just a locator. >From pandoc's point of view, there is no difference. Org-mode could probably take a similar stance. > So to answer Nicholes' "CSL processor does its job" question, the > answer would be "yes'; correct? Agree. -- Albert Krewinkel GPG: 8eed e3e2 e8c5 6f18 81fe e836 388d c0b2 1f63 1124
