From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:50:36 +0100 Message-ID: <87egpzicjn.fsf@pank.eu> References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d04780.cb58460a.5243.2603@mx.google.com> <87h9v3li8t.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d078ff.b044440a.06ec.3cf6@mx.google.com> <87d25rkmag.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d1bc7b.c57d440a.3c5d.2dca@mx.google.com> <87vbjh284z.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87mw4tk4m7.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87oap7z664.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87fvaibr3k.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87y4o9s5qc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50426) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKlvY-0001P5-O2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:50:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKlvS-0007lp-Ob for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:50:52 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKlvS-0007lT-IP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:50:46 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YKlvP-0004vA-FM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:50:43 +0100 Received: from 46.166.188.193 ([46.166.188.193]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:50:43 +0100 Received: from rasmus by 46.166.188.193 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:50:43 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Aloha Tom, Were obviously have similar requirements. However, there's one point where I'm entirely on the same page as you. I want to figure out if that's 'cause I haven't thought carefully enough about it, or because I have simpler requirements. tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes: > I don't think the citation command should be thought of as LaTeX > specific, but rather as one of the four pieces of information required > to create arbitrarily complex citations in the output. IIUC, it should > be possible to generate the required information for any document > preparation system from the information potentially supplied by > =pre-note=, =post-note=, =citation-command=, and =key=. The question: In any given document, do you typically need more than two types of citations, i.e. {citet, citep} OR {textcite, parentcite}? I do use other citation types, in particular a genitive version of textcite, but not very often. That was why I initially wanted something like this: simple inline: @KEY complex inline: [PRE @KEY POST :key VAL] parent: (PRE @KEY POST :key VAL) Where :type was the only key I was clever enough to think about (heavily biased by LaTeX). Then you would be able to put in the top of your document what "inline" and that "parent" means. Note, as Nicolas rightly pointed out that (ยท) shouldn't be used for syntax, so the above is to understand needs. In any case, if you, or Eric, or anybody else for that matter, often rely on much more than two types of citations in any given document perhaps this is better: [TYPE: PRE @KEY POST :key VAL] :key VAL may not be needed at all (but e.g. the new cool \textcites()()[][]{} commands have even more arguments). That's essentially the "generalized link" you were talking about earlier. Display in the buffer is indeed something that should be tackled, but this is an issue of overlays, like entities, and not the immediate issue. But I have it in mind as well. It's tough though, when you have other citations types than author-year. Cheers, Rasmus -- Lasciate ogni speranza, voi che leggete questo.