Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> I still remain somewhat on the positive side of 0. While the focus of
> these conversations has been on syntax (a necessary step to move
> forward), there has been little focus on function.

One step at a time. It's already difficult to agree on a syntax.

> Citations in org are /far/ more than just references in the text for
> me. They are functional links, gateways to a lot of information
> connected to the citation. My org-files are much more useful than the
> PDF manuscripts that get exported. It is hard to explain what that
> means exactly, so if you have the time check these videos out. The
> last one shows the most integrated capabilities we use.
>
> org-ref show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvpSVl4_dg
> org-ref in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zya8SfmCtFA
> org-ref + helm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cEb6F9AEu0

Very interesting. I wish we can provide some of these features out of
the box in a future release.

> These features beat the pants off every citation manager software I have
> ever seen, and over the past decade I have tried a lot of them. There is
> in my opinion no syntax worth giving this up for. I am only moderately
> sure the proposed syntax can be used the way we use links. I am only
> mildly concerned some things will be too difficult to do that are
> currently possible, e.g. sorting a multcite, or rearranging them with
> arrow keys. Who knows, some things might be simpler.

I'm really puzzled here. The very point of this new syntax is to provide
at least as much information as links, while being more readable in most
cases.

For example, I suggested

  [cite:subtype: whatever]

which is, in my book, equivalent to 

  [[subtype:whatever]]

I think other suggestions are as capable.

Again, the problem is not what you could do with the new syntax, but
what information it brings. AFAIU, you only need a "type" property,
which is pretty easy to provide. 

So, why do you think it would not be equivalent, feature-wise to links?


Regards,