Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:
> This distinction is wrong, and we should treat "suppress-author" as a
> citation style instead.
>
> The result would be:
>
> [cite/supress-author:doe19;doe20]
>
> Or even can keep the shorthand:
>
> [cite/-:doe19;doe20]
>
> In fact, with the change, could even remove it entirely
We introduced :suppress-author because someone requested it at some
point. I don't remember who, but it may be worth asking that person.
I did some quick searching.
Wow; this goes back a long time!
Anyway, Richard Lawrence summarized previous discussions, which includes this detail, in this 2015 post:
Not sure if he introduced the idea or not, but if not, he should know.
I think there are two points to consider before removing suppress-author
syntax:
1. does it make sense to apply it independently on references within
a full citation?
2. does it make sense to apply it on top of another style?
Yes; excellent summary.
As I say, my impulse is to say no to both, outside some corner cases that people could work around in other ways.
But I hope people will challenge me if this is a bad idea.
And hopefully Richard can weigh in.
If both answers are no, this can definitely go away.
> Or even can keep the shorthand:
>
> [cite/-:doe19;doe20]
Note that Org Citation library does not recognize styles. It is up to
the processor to interpret it as a short-hand for "suppress-author".
Right; I understand.
Bruce