From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 2DQ9JB3crV6wdQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 02 May 2020 20:46:21 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id uP/vAijcrV5cDAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 02 May 2020 20:46:32 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB94943D0D for ; Sat, 2 May 2020 20:46:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37760 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUz1o-000483-BQ for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 16:46:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36718) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUz1K-00046H-0z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 16:45:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUz1F-0008On-CQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 16:45:57 -0400 Received: from forward2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.226]:38487) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUz1A-0007hY-MJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 16:45:53 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailforward.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D811940E85; Sat, 2 May 2020 16:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 02 May 2020 16:45:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ijInQg kALSeou1PzamVkq6wremx/TNuMMTNK5jM1/f8=; b=FcWjb85Vf8nF2VV3suL2+l AVMMb8Hw7WGHIhc6qGbsNPb0FA4Bf7c8liavj9aicaNnYeZA+dz/ASpxUtfMupVF 9CsecjmDJrckbU1rQGFaMOUzgQRnZkW1Inw9MaZ4Y4rryVelRWIyfwOB9nHXPldf +hTY968F6DSTP/qJ28VmAzWhHkyXkMkN86yYhYc/mmcCHeKNGSGF7HZZK/m68Drc W66bHvLuIquOxGF/rXeZGlGQ57vH2rf5Ty2rG1jPz3D0v5bAcAdVzAK/glcIgtdk psF6xiFcSjuFjnWXdoLox9Fz+pGMddRWL2SUytxXpLtSnnTu0YbSC63tr2WHDT7Q == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrieelgdduhedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufgjfhffkfggtgesthdtredttddttdenucfhrhhomheptfhitghhrghr ugcunfgrfihrvghntggvuceorhhitghhrghrugdrlhgrfihrvghntggvsehunhhiqdhtuh gvsghinhhgvghnrdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfejheeujeelgfdvieekkeeg tefhgeekkedvgeeljedvteejhefhffefteeggfelnecukfhppeegiedrhedrvdehhedrvd dvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprhif lhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from aquinas (hsi-kbw-046-005-255-022.hsi8.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [46.5.255.22]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B5B1F3280059; Sat, 2 May 2020 16:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwl by aquinas with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jUz14-0008Q4-P1; Sat, 02 May 2020 22:45:42 +0200 From: Richard Lawrence To: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback In-Reply-To: <87ees27a49.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <777184861.71192.1586510991834@office.mailbox.org> <87h7xp0z1y.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <874kto245n.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sgh8zpmg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1084456979.81820.1586724551265@office.mailbox.org> <877dykz6ri.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r1wrwvam.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87wo6hfg4k.fsf@aquinas> <87v9lx6ju6.fsf@aquinas> <87r1wj7scc.fsf@aquinas> <87lfmjzgeq.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87h7x7z62q.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87k11v5zdn.fsf@aquinas> <87ees27a49.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 22:45:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87h7wy5amh.fsf@aquinas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: neutral client-ip=66.111.4.226; envelope-from=rwl@fastmail.com; helo=forward2-smtp.messagingengine.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/02 16:45:45 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 66.111.4.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Bruce D'Arcus , org-mode-email , John Kitchin Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 1.99 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=FcWjb85V; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 2001:470:142::17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [1.99 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.49501228223688]; MX_INVALID(1.00)[cached]; DWL_DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[2001:470:142::17:from]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2001:470:142::/48:c]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[messagingengine.com:s=fm2]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.15), country: US(-0.00), ip: 2001:470:142::17(-0.50)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[messagingengine.com:-]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[2001:470:142::17:server fail]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:2001:470:142::/48, country:US]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[46.5.255.22:received]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[richard.lawrence@uni-tuebingen.de,emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[nicolasgoaziou.fr:email]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[uni-tuebingen.de]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com,gnu.org,andrew.cmu.edu]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[9]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: Woe/W6sc2v/3 Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I think there are really two paths here: either we only support the > common denominator between all processors, like, e.g., Pandoc, or we > handle every possible command, knowing that most of them will not be > portable anyways. Yes, I think that is the core issue: which way to do we want to go here? My opinion has always been that it makes more sense to just support the common denominator at the level of Org citation syntax, for two reasons: (1) it makes implementing a good solution that will work for a lot of cases much more feasible, and (2) anyone who really needs more than the common denominator -- that is to say, anyone who needs BibLaTeX -- can already write arbitrary LaTeX snippets directly in an Org document. Thus the latter group doesn't really lose anything if the syntax only supports the common denominator, while everyone else has a lot to gain from an implementation of citation syntax that can be exported on other backends. On the other hand, this opinion is narrowly focused on the issue of how citation syntax can be rendered into citations when exporting a document. When I think about the other uses for the syntax that e.g. John Kitchin has talked about in this thread, and that something like a future org-ref could support, then I see that people who need to export citations as BibLaTeX *would* still be missing out if they couldn't use the citation syntax. So, I think it is good if the syntax can support advanced BibLaTeX users too, and it looks to me like the "cite/xxx" syntax can do that. I have no objections to the syntax you've proposed, Nicolas. I *do* think it's worth marking a clear distinction between citation syntax that can vs. cannot be expected to export correctly on non-LaTeX backends. It looks to me at the moment like that distinction will be expressed as the difference between "cite" and "cite/xxx". For me, that's a reason to make "cite/text" a special case and give it its own syntax, since this is such an important and widespread use case, and CSL supports it. But I don't feel that strongly about this. For me, it would be fine if it's mentioned as a special case in the manual. -- Best, Richard