Re: Should wip-cite branch be merged to master?

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

András Simonyi <andras.simonyi@gmail.com> writes:

>   > [cite:author @Jones2018]
>
>   > Again, maybe it's worth having some shortcuts here for the common cases,
>   > but I think in general we want to try to avoid proliferation of basic
>   > citation commands. So for that reason I think we should just stick with
>   > the 'cite'/'(cite)' distinction as the two basic commands, perhaps with
>   > a more extensible/compositional syntax in each case for expressing the
>   > variations on these two basic types of citation.
>
> Again, I very much agree with the general direction of these proposals,
> but doesn't this mean that the citation element should have an attribute
> to represent which parts of an 'in text' citation are meant to be in the
> main text? (I think currently the only citation-specific attributes in
> the wip-cite branch are 'prefix', 'suffix' and 'parenthetical'.)

IIRC, in the proposal above was, i.e., [cite:foo: @Jones2018], "foo"
would be a well-defined style. IOW, it could cover much more than
a simple "author".

> I'd like to add that I don't consider the choice of the two citation
> commands a crucial one, 'cite' as 'in main text' and '(cite)' as
> 'parenthetical' could also be a perfectly usable syntax/semantics,
> especially if -- as Richard suggests -- we provide extension points to
> cover more complex use cases.

The syntax above might be such an extension point. It requires, however,
to find a way to associate a style definition to a given key.

Thank you to the answers of everyone involved so far. It's nice to see
this moving forward.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou