Re: Citations, continued

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

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

> See cite:Doe1999 for an overview; a more extensive discussion is in
> cite:Foobar2000

This is ok and supported by ox-bibtex.el.

> if the pre/post text is really critical somehow, you can do this.
>
> [[cite:Doe1999][See::for an overview]]; a more extensive discussion is in
> cite:Foobar2000

This is displayed as "See::for an overview" with an underline, which is
not really good enough.

> I guess this would also be ok in orgref:
> [[cite:Doe1999][See::for an overview]][[cite:Foobar2000][; a more extensive
> discussion is in]]

Which is displayed as 

See::for an overview; a more extensive discussion is in

Which is formidably unreadable!


> How does the pandoc syntax handle different link types.

We can make it more powerful as necessary.

> We never use pre/post text in citations in our work, and they don't even
> make sense with all citation formats, e.g. superscripted numbers. Maybe
> someone could provide some real life citation examples that links can't
> handle?

[[cite:key][prenote postnote]]

Per your examples above. 

> I suspect a lot of pre/post text issues can be solved manually as:
>
> (see cite:key1, pg33-4; also cite:key2, chapter 3)
> and you will get what you want in the output.

Note that \parencite[pre][post]{key} becomes (see author, year post).  I
don't know how to construct this in a simple way as (see author (year) post) 
is not good enough.

> In word, I suppose there are little fields in the main document, and you
> run some function that fires up zotero/endnote/mendeley, etc... that does
> the formatting.

I guess...

>>
>> The other problems, I think, must wait until a stable citation syntax
>> emerges -- export support in particular.  (Using an existing syntax from
>> another project could help ease the transition here: if people can
>> export citations using an existing tool, they'll be able to switch to
>> that syntax immediately, and use the external tool in the meantime while
>> Org-internal support for it catches up.)
>>
>> I hope this is a useful starting point for further discussion!
>>
>
> So, after working through all that, I still think links are good enough for
> a large portion of citations.

Not surprisingly I disagree.

It "breaks" whenever you have pre and post notes.  Author-Year is pretty
common and pre and post is pretty damn important.  Readability is
important and links fail at this step for any citation but the most simple
ones.

Links are "hard" to type outside of Emacs and logically/syntax-wise
unpleasant and are displayed poorly within Emacs.

—Rasmus

-- 
The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club