Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
> So, the (opinionated) useful defaults in biblatex are:
> cite(s), parencite(s), footcite(s), texcite(s), fullcite,
> footfullcite, nocite
So that is to say we need to be able to express the following
distinctions (did I miss anything?):
- in-text vs. parenthetical (parencite vs. textcite)
- normal citation vs. multi-cite citation with common pre and
post notes (-s variants)
- producing a full bibliography entry, or not (-full- variants)
- footnoted, or not (foot- variants)
- producing output, or not (nocite)
I am not sure about that the last two need to be represented in citation
syntax itself. Do we need a separate way of indicating that a citation
should appear in a footnote? Org already has footnote syntax...can't
authors just put citations in an Org footnote?
As for nocites, I liked your earlier suggestion that we have a #+NOCITE
keyword (which could be specified multiple times). So I am not
sure this needs to be in citation syntax proper, either.
> Citation types for extracting parts:
> citeauthor, citetitle, citeyear, citedate, citeurl,
As I've said in other posts, I think maybe we should not think of these
as `citation' commands and thus don't need to represent them in citation
syntax. Instead I suggest we give authors tools to insert this
information into documents directly.
Best,
Richard
