Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> On Tuesday, 10 Mar 2015 at 09:50, Rasmus wrote:
>> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>>> Since this one is not much more intrusive than the previous one, we
>>> could as well drop @key in favor of @{key}.
>>
>> It seems like a moderately dear price to pay for everyone with "normal"
>> citation keys... It's better than @key-with-',?.'{}.
>
> I agree. I would rather type @key >90% of the time instead of
> @{key}. For me, the alternative is more than a moderately high price to
> pay!
I too agree. If we only allow one syntax, I much prefer to stick with
the original, and deal with the punctuation restriction elsewhere.
As far as I can tell, the only actual example we've seen of a key that
ends in punctuation is the one Vaidheeswaran sent, and that still seems
like an edge case to me: it should be corrected by adding data to the
reference database, not accommodated by Org's key syntax.
I think Tom's worry that we might see more of that kind of thing in the
future is fair, and deserves more thought. I suggest we stick with the
original syntax for now, and revisit the issue in the future if it
becomes clear that there are lots of non-conforming keys `in the wild'.
In the meantime, tools that automatically insert keys from citation
managers can warn the user if they don't conform to the syntax.
Best,
Richard
