Hi,
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> - full-citation (aka individual citation), with, in addition to the
> properties above, :prefix and :suffix, both being parsed string.
Full-citation is confusing. A full citation is (to me) what you have in
the bibliography.
> Since full citations can only exist in a bracketed citation, there is no
> reason to create a third object type for the latter. It acts as a mere
> container only useful for lexer.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you by bracketed citation mean a
parentheses expression your claim in false. This is a valid and common
enough citation:
Smith (see e.g. 1991, pp. 31)
\textcite[see in particular][pp. 31]{smith}
On the other hand if "bracketed" refers to how it's written in the source,
how do I get both AUTHOR (PRE YEAR SUF) and (PRE AUTHOR, YEAR SUF)
citations in the same document?
> . For example,
> Eric's parser chose the former, which is good, but also disallows square
> brackets in prefix, which rules out some objects from this location
> (mainly links and footnotes).
\textcite[test\footnote{test}][]{key} won't compile either, though you
could probably work around if you really wanted to.
> Of course I understand the need for compatibility with existing Pandoc
> syntax, but I wouldn't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot. Even if
> we don't use "cite:" markup, I think we should carefully specify current
> syntax to avoid loopholes.
I /don't/ understand why comparability with pandoc is needed. For better
or worse Org is a different markup.
How would cite: work with prefix, posfix and citationtype?
—Rasmus
--
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know
