Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply. A very colorful (in Gnus at least) reply
follows.
>>> 1. [cite:@item1] says blah.
>>> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>
>> Why is "p." stripped here?
>
> I don't understand. Anyway, I now suggest
This is what I'm talking about:
>>> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>> ... ^^^^
>>> 2. Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>>> ^^^
>>> 3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>>> 4. [cite:@item1: -@item2 p. 30; see also @item3] says blah.
>>
>> If item{1,2} have the same author biblatex[-chicago?] is smart enough to
>> compress it to "author (year1, year2)". So this example seems like a
>> downgrade if "-" is required to get the suggested output.
>
> [@item1 -@item2 p. 30]
>
> Downgrade is a bit strong.
If I have to think about the /formatting/ out output rather than the
/contents/ downgrade is not too strong (IMO). In the example above, why
not [@item1 @item2 p. 30]?
Another issue is that it's not transpose-words safe. E.g. this output
seems bad: [-@k1 @k2 30] => Y1 A2 (Y2, 30).
>>> 5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3].
>>
>> Why is chap. *not* stripped here?
>
> I do not understand either.
Compare to example 1 where p. is stripped. Here chap. is /not/ stripped.
>>> 5. A citation group (see Doe 2005, 34–35; also Doe and Roe 2007, chap.
>>> 3).
>> Where does suffix and locator end here. E.g. what is the output of
>>
>> [cite:: @item1 33, pp. 35-37, and nowhere else].
>
> [cite: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and nowhere else]
>
> suffix and locator are merged (AFAIU, in practice, there is no
> distinction between locator and suffix): "pp. 33, 35-37, and nowehere
> else".
But in your previous examples data is stripped from the locator. If
there's no difference I think it would be better to not talk about this
locator 'cause it's extremely confusing.
>>> 9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else].
>>
>> How do I know this is a suffix? Is locator a regexp like
>> \`[p\.0-9 ]+?
>
> See above.
>> What is [cite:@K s. 12] or [cite:@K side.? 12]?
>
> See above.
See also above. From you explanation I would guess that at least these
two examples are wrong. Is that correct?
>>> 2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>> 2. Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>>> 3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>>> 3. Doe (2005, 30, with suffix) says blah.
>> What if I need several text cite keys. Say @K{1,2} is the same author A,
>> and @K3 is B. Then [cite:@K1,@K2,@K3] should/could be something like
>> A (Y1, Y2), and B (Y3). How do I express this?
>
> Since A and B do not appear in the same parenthesis, two citations are
> needed:
>
> [@K1 -@K2], and [@K3]
This is a minor downgrade from biblatex. The year thing is worse.
>> Some comments.
>>
>> 1. Am I supposed to distinguish between a text citations and parenthesis
>> citation based on a single ":"? That's hard. Why not distinguish
>> based on the initial label? E.g. {textcite, parentcite} or {citet,
>> citep}.
>
> In fact, you're right, we don't need the colon, hence my other proposal.
This is much better.
>> 2. The idea of locator /and/ suffix is confusing. The fact that your
>> examples suggest seemingly random dropping of data from locator makes
>> me want to avoid it even more. It's a 'can of worms' to use a
>> frequently emerging expression from this list.
>
> Again, there's no real need to extract a locator. At least, not at the
> parser level.
Let's stop talking about this locator then. It appears nowhere else in
LaTeX or Org documentation.
>> 5. . . . Yet I still don't know how to get A1 (PRE Y2) with the above.
>> Is the benchmark correct?
>
> You can't. Is this needed?
It's not unheard of. I have used it in the past. In LaTeX it's something
like:
\citet[C]{k} → A (Y, C)
\citet[B][]{k} → A (B, Y)
\citet[B][C]{k} → A (B, Y, C)
>> If parsing speed is key here I think that
>> [citet: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2] and [citep: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2
>> post2]
>> are clearer solutions. But this is clearly closer to a LaTeX than
>> pandoc.
>
> If "A1 (PRE Y2)" is really needed, then yes, I think that's good enough.
> Otherwise I think [@k1] is terse and nice.
It's nice. @k1 / [pre @k1 post] for text and (pre @k1 post) for
parentheses expressions is nicer, but that's details. I trust your
judgment on the technical merit of one idea versus the next.
Thanks,
Rasmus
--
El Rey ha muerto. ¡Larga vida al Rey!
