On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:26 AM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > > Timothy <tecos...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Bruce D'Arcus <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >>> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it > >>> deals with within-document referencing --- should it? > > > >> 1. Should it? > >> 1. Maybe. > > > > I feel like it would fit. With everything that's been done for > > citations, this feels like it may be a rather minor addition (or at > > least this is what I hope). > > > >> 2. Can it? Could the design be extended to include internal referencing? > >> 2. I think so. You'd just need a way to include internal targets in > >> addition to the citation-references (keys); for illustration, > >> something like [cite:#some-if]. > > > > I can't claim to have thought about this that much either, but something > > like [cite:#some-fig] would seem to fit. > > > >> 3. If yes to both, should that hold back merger now? > >> 3. No. > > > > I don't think this should hold up the merge either, but it's relevant in > > the overall nature of the feature and perhaps could be shoehorned in > > following the merge? I feel like this is one small quite simple case and > > most of the thinking required has already been done. I'm not sure > > though, I'd go with whatever Nic's thought are on this. > > At this point, I don't have enough understanding of the problem to have > an opinion. IIUC, your example does not even mention citations. How > should it be used, what should be the output in LaTeX, and in UTF-8 > export? This is not clear to me. > > What can I say however is: if this feature implies to change, or extend, > syntax, then it is /de facto/ a blocker for the merge, and needs to be > sorted out.
As I was hinting, I don't know this area well either. I think the first question is the "should" one; whether this is in-scope of this module. I wasn't sure, so said "maybe". Joost says "no." In latex, such internal references are not citations though; they use a different mechanism. Does that not suggest, Timothy, that this might be out-of-scope for this module; that Joost is right? Bruce
