Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 7:45 AM Denis Maier <denisma...@mailbox.org> wrote: >> * Note style input (=semantically strict input) >> >> "A quotation ending with a period." [cite: @hoel-71-whole] >> >> "A quotation ending without punctuation". [cite: @hoel-71-whole] >> >> As the input preserves the location of punctuation in the original >> material, I'd say it should be much easier to deal with this. We >> don't have to add information which isn't in the input, but rather >> we'll just have to move any punctuation to after the citation >> object. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me this looks like >> a much simpler operation than going in the opposite direction. This cannot be. We don't know anything about the cite after the quotation. A bare cite could be starting out a new sentence: "A quotation ending with a period." [cite: @hoel-71-whole] pretends… OTOH, we know perfectly when a citation is meant to become a footnote (at least in basic and csl processors). And we know — almost, as you demonstrated — where to put that footnote. Moreover, I think the syntax you propose has another drawback: it doesn't correspond to any desired output (note or something else). As this looks artificial, I fear it might hinder readability of the Org document. ... period." [cite:@doe21] [cite/text:@doe21] pretends… >> Maybe we should stop talking about author date vs note style input, but >> rather about strict vs. non-strict input. > > It's definitely not author-date vs note. I see it as in-text citations > vs note citations. As in, the former applies to other styles beyond > author-date. I think the current patch is purely about note citations. I mentioned "author-date" in a docstring just because I didn't know how to express it otherwise. So, in a way, I agree it can be considered as in-text citations vs note citations, indeed. > The example you are highlighlighting here was why I was earlier > suggesting for a rule that would allow something like this input: > > "A quotation ending with a period." [cite: @hoel-71-whole]. > > ... where the second would be dropped, hence getting the expected output. This is interesting, but we might get false positives, as in the following (far-fetched) example … the so-called "foobar". [cite/text: See @hoel-71-whole p. 42]. which bites us because we need to process even non-note citations to remove the spurious punctuation while ignoring the necessity of a given punctuation character. As another, imperfect, workaround, I submit the following idea for consideration: "A quotation ending without punctuation" [cite: @hoel-71-whole]. "A quotation ending with a period"[cite: @hoel-71-whole]. IOW, the presence or absence of a space before the citation determines, according to a note rule, if the punctuation should go inside or outside the quotation. When processing non-note citations, we just need to ensure there is at least a space after the previous element, which is less "dangerous" than removing punctuation. I find it a bit too subtle, and so error-prone, but so is punctuation anyway. WDYT? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
