Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> AFAICT, the most advanced use of citations is Thomas', and he is
> basically only using "subtype". So I'm pretty confident that 99.9% of
> users will be fine with only these subtypes.
> ...
> Again, I don't think we need {:key val} at the moment. Also, it would be
> nice to eschew having once again at least two different ways to write
> the same thing (footnotes, links...).
OK. I don't anticipate needing {:key val} myself anytime soon; I was
just trying to future-proof the syntax, and I don't want to lobby for it
if you feel strongly that this is problematic.
If there are others (John? Aaron? Samuel?) who think they really need
the {:key val} syntax *over and above* a subtype designation, please
speak up!
Best,
Richard
