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 uN67Fp+XpF4GbwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:03:43 +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 wCgJO6aXpF43FwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:03:50 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (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 AC81B94371D for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46682 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSR1e-00070b-LC for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:03:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSR1C-00070B-0k for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:03:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSR1A-0004GS-IW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:03:17 -0400 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:38007) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSR19-0004Fr-Uc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:03:16 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 185.131.40.67 Received: from localhost (40-67.ipv4.commingeshautdebit.fr [185.131.40.67]) (Authenticated sender: admin@nicolasgoaziou.fr) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 919D320009; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:03:10 +0000 (UTC) From: Nicolas Goaziou To: "Bruce D'Arcus" Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback References: <777184861.71192.1586510991834@office.mailbox.org> <87imi72bn0.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <1016821769.78551.1586641375789@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> Mail-Followup-To: "Bruce D'Arcus" , Richard Lawrence , org-mode-email , John Kitchin Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 22:03:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Bruce D'Arcus's message of "Sat, 25 Apr 2020 13:00:40 -0400") Message-ID: <87h7x7z62q.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.200; envelope-from=mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr; helo=relay7-d.mail.gandi.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/25 16:03:12 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 217.70.183.200 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: Richard Lawrence , org-mode-email , John Kitchin Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: -1.01 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [-1.01 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.55965828451394]; HAS_XOIP(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.20), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.56)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[eggs.gnu.org]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr,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]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[nicolasgoaziou.fr]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: JLujuzptYiEH Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:20 PM Nicolas Goaziou = wrote: > [...] >> >> [cite/text: ...] >> [cite/paren: ...] >> > So in this approach, we have a single core "cite" command, and > everything else is a namespaced extension? Indeed. > My understanding, though, is that org "cite" would default to your > last example I quote above (in natibib, citep); that there's no need > for a dedicated "cite/paren" command, either reserved or not. Not necessarily. "cite" means default value, whatever that is. It could, for example, mean: "cite/text" for every citation, if that is what you use the most. In that case, "cite/paren" is necessary, to override it locally. It could also be, e.g., "cite/footnote", then both "cite/text" and "cite/paren" could be of some use. That was suggested by Richard Lawrence in this thread, if my memory serves me right. Does that make sense? > So by default, the "cite" command might yield something like this on > output (of course, depending on processor)? > > - to natbib/latex =3D "\citep{doe18}" > > For final HTML output (say using citeproc-el/org), something like: > > - author-date =3D "(Doe, 2018)" > - number =3D "[3]" > - note =3D "2" (represented as a footnote or endnote, of course) > > ... etc. > > And then we need a mechanism to do the textual variant (natbib citet); > "cite/text" makes sense to me. I assume this would be the more common configuration, indeed. > Given how common that is (In natbib, it and citep are the two core > commands), is there any downside to reserving that? As I wrote, we can reserve "cite/text" already. Could we find something shorter for such a common need? Well, I didn't find any syntax compelling enough=E2=80=94I don't like special casing. For example, having both "citeX" and "cite/XXX", as suggested by Denis Maier, is a bit convoluted, IMO. E.g., having both "citet" and "cite/text" would just add confusion to the system, IMO. Besides, "cite/text" is not that difficult to type. Moreover, you would probably use a tool to insert the citation anyway. This is not an irrevocable decision, of course. I merely suggested and implemented one syntax, but I'm still open to suggestions. > And then I guess the "suppress-author" variant would be something like > "cite/year" or "cite/suppress-author"? The syntax still includes the "suppress-author" mechanism: [cite:-@doe20]. It could be redundant with "cite/suppress-author", indeed. We can keep it nonetheless. We can also decide to remove the "-@key" special syntax. Or, we could also consider this idea to be an interesting one, and extend it, with, e.g., [cite:!@doe20], which could be a shortcut for [cite/text:@doe20]. Special cases=E2=80=A6 Everything's possible. You tell me. Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou