Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnar...@gmail.com> writes: >> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the fact that the >> citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, and that it has a prefix >> and suffix, should be represented in the output. > > 1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of in-text > or parenthetical already chosen for you? Stated other way, is the > choice between parenthetical or in-text document-wide or is it that > one could intermix the two styles in the same document.
These could be intermixed in the same document. The document-level style determines how each type ultimately looks, but the choice of style is (mostly) independent of using parenthetical vs. in-text citations. > 2. Citation processor like JabRef just takes a cite-key. It doesn't > take a pre or post-note. So, the pre and post notes should be > spliced in to the exported document by the elisp module that > interfaces with the citation processor. Right. That's what I'm thinking, anyway. > If we are going to interface with a citation-processor, the best > course of action would be to have someone first 'gauge' the > capabilities provided by the citation processor and let that > experience inform what Org should aspire to do. Yes. Other people have more experience with this than me. But based on what Pandoc is able to do, I am pretty confident that everything that has been proposed could be handled by a CSL processor like citeproc-js (or Pandoc's own). The possible exceptions are the common prefix and common suffix in a multi-work citation, which I imagine would be easy enough to add to the output of the citation processor. Best, Richard
