Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

hi rasmus,

dunno if this is of any value [possibly negative value via confusion].

cannot respond to all of it, so just a little.

On 2/21/15, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> wrote:
> But citations is a different beast and fixed syntax is what is needed.

the syntax for citations can be defined to be fixed.

> If you don't allow a generalized link to follow a
> user-specified λs then you don't have a flexible syntax
> that you expressed desire for above.  You'd still have to
> wait for somebody "upstream" to develop [color-start:⋯].

not sure why you are talking about links.

you can write color-start as a user.  you can even define a
feature that requires a lambda: $[rasmus-color-start (lambda
(x) (rasmus-stuff))].  or $[rasmus-color ...].

but if we are going to define citations with this syntax,
then we can do so strictly.  no need for lambda.

> You are.  I just don't agree citation support should be
> generalized to a more abstract level at this point.  What

citations can be specific and concrete.

the first atom says it's a citation.  it's up to the
developers of citation syntax to decide how specific and
concrete it should be.

maybe you are saying that you don't think it's a good idea
to allow other first atoms.  not sure why.

> reproducible, scientific writing is a rigorous, standard syntax.

also, those adjectives are up to the developers.

just make it error upon nonstandardness.

the only difference is that you won't have to create the
infrastructure the NEXT time you as a developer or user want
to add syntax.

===


samuel

-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

The disease DOES progress.  MANY people have died from it.
And ANYBODY can get it.

Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.