Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > In the initial suggestion @k:journal or @k:author was not possible. In > pandoc, AFAIU, in-text means author is outside parenthesis. Nothing > fancier. So [-@k1] would mean: "author" is outside parenthesis, but > should not be displayed anyway.
If [-@k1] has non-obvious, interchangeable meanings depending on where it happens to be typed I like it even less. "-@" seems flaky and over-complicated IMO. > Really my concerns are about parsing speed and readability within the > document. Agreed. > Heavy biblatex users will eventually have to fall-back to > LaTeX-specific syntax at some point anyway. That's unfortunate. >>> I understand, but would it be needed to have both A (Y, C) and A (B, Y) >>> in the same document? >> >> Sure, why not? > > I don't know. Pandoc doesn't allow it, and, apparently, nobody > complained enough to add this feature to Pandoc citations. So, either it > is not that useful, or Pandoc citations are hardly used. Perhaps Org-Mode users write more sophisticated documents See Tom's post for a more careful analysis of what data a citation contains. > Also, it is ambiguous with link syntax (e.g., if pre begin with "[") and > footnotes syntax. So don't allow footnotes and links within citations. Emphasis is enough. This is a less severe loss than PRENOTE. Also, nested citations can be dropped: e.g. A1 (Y1, POST1, PRE1 A2 Y2 POST2) if that makes parsing easier. >>> I haven't much against @k1, but it introduces more false positives than >>> [@k1]. >> >> It could check if k1 is a known key and interpret "@k1" accordingly. > > No it couldn't. Org doesn't know about keys. Or, more precisely, syntax > mustn't depend on known keys. I don't want to make the same mistake as > export blocks (i.e., #+begin_html doesn't mean the same thing if > "ox-html" is loaded or not). That's valid. I remember having run into this (and maybe even report it as a bug). —Rasmus -- With monopolies the cake is a lie!
