Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes: > Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
>> Parts I hate: >> The flag is either `@' or `&'. `@' [...] The optional hyphen (`-') >> Too many weird symbols that I won't be able to remember, much less explain >> to somebody else. > I don't love these either, but I am not sure what a better > alternative would be. I would say, just keep "@" to mark the key. The others are not really needed. Both, "&" and "-" are better handled by a nice internal syntax, something like [cite:command ...] or [cite: ... @key :part year ...] These internal extensions via keywords are IMHO much nicer that the "%%(...)" variant (as a programmer I also like "%%(...)", but not as an author). I think this kind of syntax (only plain "@key" or maybe "[@key]" as shortcut and everything else within "[cite:...]") is also easier to handle with overlays, user input helpers etc. Some input helper can make remembering all the options and keywords inside [cite:...] a non-issue and overlays will render it nice in the text. Therefore the syntax should be rather simple and regular with as few exceptions and shorthands as sensible. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.
