Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> I think it would be nicer to differentiate between in-text and
>> parenthetical citations at the type level, e.g.:
>>
>>
>> [cite: this @key citation is in-text]
>> [(cite): this @key citation is parenthetical]
>>
>> or, as already suggested
>>
>> [citet: ...]
>> [citep: ...]
>>
>> I prefer the former.
>
> I prefer the latter.
OK.
> It's explicit,
No, sir. (cite) is explicit. It means "a citation enclosed within
parenthesis". citep is only explicit if you come from LaTeX world.
> shorter
cite and (cite) have the same mean length!
> and doesn't hitting shift for '()' (on my kb).
OK. "Rasmus' keyboard" (aka. a Rk) is a decent unit of measurement for
syntax quality, I guess. ;)
> No voodoo. I don't mind either, though.
What colour are voodoo sheds these days?
>> As pointed out, this is very odd. But I cannot see any clean solution.
>> However, it would be nice to integrate it somehow with the syntax. Maybe
>> something like
>>
>> [cite: ... @key ...; ... @key2 ... |latex: :prop val |html: :prop val]
>
> I prefer to have more expressive keys, e.g. the 'cite' part.
Please don't touch (too much) the "cite" part. This is for Org, not for
export back-ends.
> But perhaps it's a good way express extra properties. The thing is,
> for latex the extra property is a citation type.
Then
[cite: ... |latex: :type citedwim]
How many "Rk" does this score?
>> AFAIU, when using in-text citation, only the first key is extracted
>> out of the parenthesis, so
>>
>> [cite: @Doe99 p. 34; see also @DoeRoe2000]
>>
>> should really render like
>>
>> Doe (1999, p. 34; see also Doe and Roe 2000).
>>
>> IOW, why do you think that "a citation is in-text or parenthetical as
>> a whole"?
>
> No! I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that neither John, Eric, Tom
> nor myself have seen a citation like this in the wild. If you have I
> might be wrong. It's no easily supported in latex. The latex equivalent
> of the above is:
>
> \citeauthor{doe} (\citeyear[p.\ 34]{doe}; see also \textcite*{roe})
>
> Or something like that.
>
> AFAIK,
> [cite: @Doe99 p. 34; see also @DoeRoe2000]
> → Doe (1999, p. 34) and see also Doe et al (2000)
> or maybe
> Doe (1999, p. 34) and Doe et al (see also 2000).
>
> I don't remember.
OK. Then let's forget about my remark.
Regards,
