From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: Should wip-cite branch be merged to master?
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 01:34:56 +0200
Message-ID: <87a7tote8v.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <29b94436.a1e.162e54aa7c1.Coremail.tumashu@163.com>
	<871sf9f2ak.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87in8cl5o4.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43048)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1fCCtO-0001wT-8b
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 19:35:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1fCCtN-0006qh-BR
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 19:35:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87in8cl5o4.fsf@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Andr=C3=A1s?=
	Simonyi"'s message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2018 23:07:23 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode"
	<emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A1s?= Simonyi <andras.simonyi@gmail.com>
Cc: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>, tumashu <tumashu@163.com>, emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>, John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu>

Hello,

Andr=C3=A1s Simonyi <andras.simonyi@gmail.com> writes:

>   > [cite:author @Jones2018]
>
>   > Again, maybe it's worth having some shortcuts here for the common cas=
es,
>   > 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 wi=
th
>   > the 'cite'/'(cite)' distinction as the two basic commands, perhaps wi=
th
>   > 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,

--=20
Nicolas Goaziou