"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:02 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> > wrote:
>> Yes, and a "t-styled" citation would be: >> >> [citet:see;@doe2020;@doe2019] >> >> Barring the prefix, the syntax of the citation does not change wrt to >> "wip-cite" branch. However, this is enough to be slightly incompatible, >> hence the "wip". > > Good; no issues that I see with this at all. Great! I'll wait a bit for others to comment. If there is no objection, I'll implement this in "wip-cite" and rebase that branch on top of "master" for easier testing and feedback. > Only question is I see you removed whitespace after the prefix on your > citet: example. > > Is the expectation (which is reasonable; am just asking) that prefixes > would add the whitespace after it on output, so users don't have worry > about this? > > So in other words, the value of an affix would be a trimmed string? That was a typo. But that's a good question anyway. Generally speaking, I'd rather avoid any magic, so the parser should not add any space whatsoever. However, should it remove some? AFAICT, Biblatex would probably ignore spacing since it provides its own mechanism to separate multiple cites. I don't know about Citeproc. Maybe trimming prefixes and postfixes is the way to go. What would you suggest here? In any case, consecutive spaces ought to be packed into a single one. This allows auto-filling a paragraph at a citation, e.g., Some very long explanation [cite:see @doe2020 pp. 12-15]. is equivalent to Some very long explanation [cite:see @doe2020 pp. 12-15]
