From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id wAtHLgL+ml4mYQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:17:54 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id SEl7OQb+ml73UgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:17:58 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842F3941AA6 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57858 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPnM5-000251-Rr for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:17:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51133) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jPnLV-00024U-C5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:17:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPnLP-0003Z0-QT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:17:21 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2f]:39484) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPnLP-0003X9-M7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:17:15 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-xe2f.google.com with SMTP id l25so193541vso.6 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 06:17:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WL0C8nKba57IxmaxtgDpFq9jIpqhIYCCKd+vPSmz8FE=; b=e5wPMLjQwuxs01Lsg/f3LRUARnBwe01b40oFVtLNTtaSYairh3WZtT1f0eX3YNop0G kSl5/AZXwjLBJato1Ulq0JrB/x7am2XZsGRER/dIBI3/6YO11WTAckTUR5/A/ilACpd2 IpG2ImmNTUvxRsaLfAihPZWzr2frqzq1p/MZC4kE04q7w91qwRhPQOMrWqrmkvrYjVp4 3lJvS1rhYhJmhM+3yLSOfXiEzpwDJJ7uylx3SX0vfx2xR4uz9XfasRdfVI18sMXabDE2 UTgB09ChvV75T+t+NdYe1yJOb23Ghyq+VHVsnx0ZpyDw50IfYxg/BtU+ttVpV2E1xJle hPaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WL0C8nKba57IxmaxtgDpFq9jIpqhIYCCKd+vPSmz8FE=; b=iikEoHVPv8Hu8XT21yajej7q8mZwEOTEh1ViQjbO5tKRpccpmXxns8eOjHKt0Y4p37 KTuxfrcKIV8aGG0RyTzmRSdhVZDWwS8UEcYXNZQte1r/SnJjo4yTzsc/9cIqvjReDqty H8OaeLq/o/hKubK7ZpvHFrkH+5l2P88x1wIYnTxOflLXG1A131/7bpdgTFGuN+/u8XKa gsttjWOSOsgHfEwVUpQa6HhIvUIzumkNgM0NGJ6aE/tSggvwOhOkHPFMg/2lBBSXkgyd +mJFR+IV0uDlDuhmvu2ZgxXbtJg257dFb7xm9Sse49+mgUol8HDOPMQc8N6LPMClFusJ q54A== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaWg1EpaZRhi/au5zFKyJBII/R0G0dECRD47pZIq0mPsQxaQ4s1 p7WkHc3fiwrhpS3ZG3Wb5mSj/2E7pkD6fBXl/iY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypK4Ob9NNEIJv5rRfWdZLR/Ck5srjMIx5gmqgKUJoBITg9ZqEKlkTBdCiraWsBOuyanw+TaJ6IyVaCneQu5e2Xw= X-Received: by 2002:a67:28c7:: with SMTP id o190mr6108465vso.48.1587215834837; Sat, 18 Apr 2020 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <777184861.71192.1586510991834@office.mailbox.org> <87imi72bn0.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1016821769.78551.1586641375789@office.mailbox.org> <87h7xp0z1y.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874kto245n.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sgh8zpmg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1084456979.81820.1586724551265@office.mailbox.org> <877dykz6ri.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r1wrwvam.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87wo6hfg4k.fsf@aquinas> <87v9lx6ju6.fsf@aquinas> In-Reply-To: <87v9lx6ju6.fsf@aquinas> From: "Bruce D'Arcus" Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:17:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback To: Richard Lawrence Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2f X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Joost Kremers , org-mode-email Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: -1.81 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=e5wPMLjQ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [-1.81 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.57443150568708]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.25), country: US(-0.01), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.57)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[209.51.188.17:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[uni-tuebingen.de:email]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[bdarcus@gmail.com,emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[emacs-orgmode@gnu.org]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[fastmail.fm,gnu.org]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: No9bdgkLHinA On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 8:48 AM Richard Lawrence wrote: > > Hi Bruce and all, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > Just to align what you're saying and what I'm saying: > > > > I see three commands in the pandoc syntax: standard/parenthetical, > > author-in-text, and suppress-author; that look like so: > > > > [@doe17] > > @doe17 > > -@doe17 > > > > Implicit in what you wrote is the last one is not needed. > > > > The question, then: Is that what you're saying; we don't need suppress-author? > > Ah, no, I didn't intend it like that. Glad I asked then! > I am not very familiar with the > implementation details of pandoc-citeproc and wasn't aware that > suppress-author was a different type of citation command. I was > (vaguely) thinking of the third case as a "variant" of an in-text > citation type, rather than a separate type. > > Actually, the Pandoc example you give seems to support this way of > thinking about it: > > > Doe, by contrast, found negative results [-@doe17]. > > That is a fourth case, right? "[-@doe17]" is not equivalent to "-@doe17"? I think, notwithstanding a mistake I think I made in my previous message, the "-" wouldn't be relevant to a bare author-in-text citation command; the latter case. So I think that's still three commands. Hopefully the below explains why, but please let me know. > In other words, what we have here are two orthogonal distinctions: > parenthetical vs. in-text, and normal vs. author-suppressed. So, at > least on my funny way of counting ;), that's two citation "types", with > two "variants" within each of those types. Just for clarity, for the record, "parenthetical" is the language of author-date citation styles. But what we're talking about with citet-like citations is broader than this. In a numeric style, for example, you could have "Doe [3]"; so this really applies to any style type (including end/footnote-based). What we're doing is putting the author in the sentence; and outside the citation. This is why I'm using the more general language of "author-in-text." So three output cases, in author-date/numeric, where I've placed content output by the citation processor in braces to distinguish it from content entered by the user: 1. "Blah blah {(Doe, 2017)}"/"Blah blah {[3]}" -> default cite command 2. "{Doe (2017)}"/"{Doe [3]}" -> author-in-text command 3. "Doe blah blah {(2017)}"/"Doe blah blah {[3]}" -> suppress-author command I can't see that it's necessary to have a fourth, because I think the result of that would be this, which doesn't make any sense. 4. "Doe blah blah {2017}"/"Doe blah blah {[3]}" -> author-in-text+suppress-author command Let us know what you think? Bruce