Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes:
> So to sum up, I expect we will explicitly define three commands:
> default (the one defined in the citation template of the style),
> suppress-author (which need not be explicitly defined in the style,
> since the processor knows how to achieve this), and cite-text.
So, is there anything wrong with [cite:@key], [cite:-@key] and
[cite/text:@key] per above?
In particular, cite-text sounds like another non-default style to me,
rather than a derivative of the default style, and if it does, this
warrants introducing a "cite/text" syntax. E.g., what happens if default
style is footnote-like and cite-text is used?
Also, I've had a cursory look at "citeproc-el" implementation, and there
is apparent support for capitalized citations. You don't seem to talk
about this. If such a thing exists, we need to introduce another marker
at the cite key level (like suppress-author).
As a last, more technical point, I'm thinking about rendering citations
in a pre-export phase, where the processor is handled a list of all
citations as Org objects (so you can extract context about them, e.g.,
footnote label around it if applicable) where all prefixes and suffixes
are already in the target format.
More specifically, as an inaccurate but enough for the point example, in
the document
Go ahead, make my day [cite:@harry83 at *0:23:18*].
assuming target is LaTeX code, the processor would see something like.
((citation ... (citation-reference :key "harry83" :suffix " at
\bold{0:23:18}")))
In particular, does Citeproc handle raw LaTeX, or more generally, any
code in (pre|suf)fix, as long as the locator is accessible? I assume so,
but I'd rather ask.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
