It seems you didn't copy the list. I add it again. > No, I think that should be fine. (Perhaps also a fourth one for > author-only. And what about nocite?)
Sorry. I wasn't clear. There is still full support for styles behind the suggested syntax, e.g., [cite/author: ...], [cite/nocite: ...] (this one is odd). I was pointing out that we cover Citeproc needs, and more. > Author in text, the rest in a footnote. So it is not really a new style; you can have cite-text on top of any style. This might be a problem. Either we invent an alternate syntax, with duplicated styles, e.g. [cite: ...] [cite/style: ...] [cite*: ...] [cite*/style: ...] this was already suggested in this thread (with "citet"). Or we make use of sub-styles, e.g. [cite: ...] [cite/foot: ...] [cite/text: ...] [cite/foot/text: ...] This is ambiguous, tho: is it "cite/foot/text" or "cite/text/foot"? Of course, this is an issue for BibLaTeX only. AFAIU, [cite/text: ...] is totally unambiguous for Citeproc. What do Bib(La)TeX users think about it? > That doesn't exist in CSL. It could be useful though. It is odd that citeproc-el offers this, then. > citeproc-js handles pseudo-html, with pandoc-citeproc it's possible to > use markdown, but I think also raw HTML should be supported... It sounds good enough, then. Besides, i assume markup in prefix/suffix is not common. Thank you.
