Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye)]

Aloha Aaron,

Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Tom,
>
> 2015ko martxoak 2an, "Thomas S. Dye"-ek idatzi zuen:
>> 
>> Aloha Aaron,
>> 
>> Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> By way of illustration, Biblatex (AFAICT) doesn’t provide a possessive
>>> citation command, which was mentioned by someone in this thread (or its
>>> predecessor) as a desideratum.  I’d expect a savvy latex user to put in
>>> their preamble:
>>> 
>>> \newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}’s (\citeyear{#1})}
>>> 
>>> That doesn’t really work in org.  (It could be put together with an org
>>> macro, but would lose the kind of click-to-view functionality that
>>> org-ref already provides and which would be ported to the new syntax as
>>> well.)
>> 
>> #+name: define-citeposs-link
>> #+begin_src emacs-lisp :results silent :exports none
>>     (org-add-link-type 
>>      "citeposs" 'ebib-open-org-link
>>      (lambda (path desc format)
>>        (cond
>>         ((eq format 'html)
>>          (format "(<cite>%s</cite>)" path))
>>         ((eq format 'latex)
>>          (format "\\citeauthor{%s}'s (\\citeyear{%s})" path path)))))
>> #+end_src
>> 
>> I haven't tested this, but I think it would work in Org mode.
>
> The main thrust of this thread, and the previous one, has been to
> define a citation syntax in org.  I don’t think anyone contests that
> link-based solutions basically do the trick for Latex (only).  And
> yet, (almost?) everyone has agreed that something more is needed, or
> at least inevitable.  So I’m puzzled why you brought this up.
>
> Are you trying to argue for subtype-based citations?  This is what I
> infer from your messages (not just this one, and please do correct me if
> I’m wrong).  If so, it would make it easier for me to understand you if
> you said so outright.  My own opinion is that plists are better than
> subtypes, but I’ve also said that I don’t think the correct decision can
> be made a priori.  So don’t let me stop you (in general, not just Tom)
> from going ahead with an implementation of subtypes, if that’s your
> preferred solution.  I would like to help out with coding or testing,
> though I haven’t yet been able to figure out where my efforts would be
> best applied.  So if there’s something you (again, in general) think
> would be helpful, don’t hesitate to ask.

I'm not able to understand the full implications of subtypes
vs. plists, so don't have a preferred solution along those lines.

I brought this up in reaction to "This doesn't really work in org."

I'm hoping for an Org mode citation syntax where there is an analogous
org-add-cite-type function, so I only have to remember the syntax one
time and can forget about it when I'm writing.

Sorry if this is noise and thanks for your patience.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com