Hi,
I realize you list Pandoc features, but I will still point out some issues
with this syntax.
Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes:
> Specifically I think we need the following categories, all of which
> would be objects:
> - key
> - prefix / pre-text
> - suffix / post-text
> - locator
What is the point of an locator? Why not just suffix? Presumably, if I
want to put pp. in front of my page numbers or whatever I can do it with
a filter or manually.
> These should have a grammar like the following, based on my
> (reverse-engineered) understanding of the Pandoc syntax for citations:
> ...
> - A key optionally begins with '-', and obligatorily contains '@'
> followed by a string of charcters which begins with a letter or '_',
> and may contain alphanumeric characters and the following internal
> punctuation characters:
> :.#$%&-+?<>~/
I fail to understand this feature. The Pandoc manual uses something like
this an example: A said X in @-key; which I think is bad practice. In
latex you'd write \citeauthor{key} said X in \citeyear{key}. Unless we
can access other keys, why adopt a special operator for year? Why not
title or author which are e.g. useful when using number citations?q
> - An unbracketed citation consists of a key, optionally followed by a
> locator which is enclosed in '[' ']'
This is another, to me, illogical structure.
[A @key B]
@key [B]
It is not obvious that [B] relates to @key in the second example.
–Rasmus
--
This message is brought to you by the department of redundant departments
