From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Lawrence Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:41:06 -0800 Message-ID: <87h9v3li8t.fsf@berkeley.edu> References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d04780.cb58460a.5243.2603@mx.google.com> 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]:37496) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIVJI-0006Ns-25 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:42:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIVJE-0001Ep-27 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:41:59 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:42318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIVJD-0001Ei-R1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:41:55 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YIVJC-0003w2-Jo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:41:54 +0100 Received: from c-67-169-117-151.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([67.169.117.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:41:54 +0100 Received: from richard.lawrence by c-67-169-117-151.hsd1.ca.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:41:54 +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 Hi Erik and all, Erik Hetzner writes: > I am really, really glad to see people discussing citations in > org-mode. But I have some concerns about this proposal. > > Before extensions are proposed to the pandoc format, I think it is > important to understand how flexible the combination of pandoc, and > what citeproc provides. I believe that pandoc can cover most of what > you want. > I also believe it would be a mistake to start from the idea of a > pandoc-style citation syntax that deviates from pandoc. Better instead > to start from what pandoc does now and find out what isn’t working for > org-mode users before extending pandoc, especially in ways that are > not compatible with pandoc. Actually, I totally agree. For my own use, I would be completely happy with just using the Pandoc syntax for citations in Org, without any modifications. The only reason I proposed anything else was that it seemed like other people already know that they need more than the Pandoc syntax provides. I think the main realistic cases are those where, in LaTeX, you'd use commands like \citetitle, \citedate, or \citejournal -- citation commands that pull in just a particular field from the reference, because that is what the context around the citation requires. I don't see a way to do that in the Pandoc syntax. (But am I missing something?) Hence my proposed field-selectors extension. Personally, I need commands like these so little that I am happy to do without them. So maybe my proposal was a bit hasty. Could we hear from other people about how badly they need what such commands provide? > And if extensions are proposed, it would be best to propose them on > the pandoc-discuss mailing list. It would be wonderful for users if > the syntax in pandoc-markdown and org-mode could stay aligned. Yes, I again totally agree. If people here settle on a syntax that is close, but not quite the same as, Pandoc's, I will certainly do that. Best, Richard