Hi Eric and all, Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> On Tuesday, 3 Feb 2015 at 11:35, Rasmus wrote: > I'm enjoying following this thread. I look forward to the community > converging on some solution. Me too! > For me, any solution will likely do just fine as my use of citations is > quite straightforward. I seldom, if ever, have pre or post text but I > do use a couple of alternative citation types (author, year; year only). Just to clarify: these are only `alternative' citation types if you're not using a citation style where they are the default types, like Chicago, right? I assume you are using a numeric style, like ACM? (This raises an interesting question, actually: what does the Pandoc syntax do with author suppression for numeric citation styles? Does [-@Smith99] still output the year, or does it produce the same numeric reference as [@Smith99]?) > I have only one suggestion to keep in mind: > >>>> What happens when a field is undefined? >>> >>> I guess I would suggest the same thing as happens in LaTeX: you get a >>> nice, bold "??" in the output where the missing data should be. >> >> Or better, throw an error. > > A *warning* would be better than an error, i.e. something that does > indicate a problem but that doesn't stop the export completing. LaTeX > does this (as noted above). Agreed. Something easily greppable, but not process-stopping. > Interestingly, I have just had a paper accepted for publication which > was written *entirely* in org. I used the [[cite:fraga-etal-2014]] > approach for handling citations. The paper made significant use of > babel to have everything in one place (data, code, results). Very > pleasing and painless experience. I did have to resort to LaTeX > specific commands a few times but mostly for the preamble (title, > authors, etc.). Cool! Best, Richard
