Hi Richard, On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 at 20:41:06 PST, Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Hi Erik and all, > > Actually, I totally agree. For my own use, I would be completely happy > with just using the Pandoc syntax for citations in Org, without any > modifications.
Great! > The only reason I proposed anything else was that it seemed like other > people already know that they need more than the Pandoc syntax provides. > I think the main realistic cases are those where, in LaTeX, you'd use > commands like \citetitle, \citedate, or \citejournal -- citation > commands that pull in just a particular field from the reference, > because that is what the context around the citation requires. I don't > see a way to do that in the Pandoc syntax. (But am I missing > something?) Hence my proposed field-selectors extension. If this is needed (and I still have a hard time seeing the use cases, but I am not an academic) perhaps it could mimic the -@doe (suppress author) syntax already used in pandoc (e.g. +title@doe). But citeproc-js/hs only support suppress author or author only, so these would not work in a pandoc export, nor any other that might depend on citeproc-js. > Personally, I need commands like these so little that I am happy to do > without them. So maybe my proposal was a bit hasty. Could we hear from > other people about how badly they need what such commands provide? > > > And if extensions are proposed, it would be best to propose them on > > the pandoc-discuss mailing list. It would be wonderful for users if > > the syntax in pandoc-markdown and org-mode could stay aligned. > > Yes, I again totally agree. If people here settle on a syntax that is > close, but not quite the same as, Pandoc's, I will certainly do that. Again, this is great. I really do appreciate your getting this proposal out there. I hope that I can finish porting my pandoc parser to elisp within a week or so, so we can have an implementation to start with. best, Erik -- Sent from my free software system <http://fsf.org/>.
