Hell, Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes:
> Simonyi András <andras.simo...@gmail.com> writes: > >> a few days ago I've released the first public version of citeproc-el >> (https://github.com/andras-simonyi/citeproc-el), a CSL 1.01 citation >> processor library for Emacs. Excellent! Thank you for this work. >> The resulting link syntax is rather cumbersome so I'd like to ask >> your opinion about introducing an alternative org-mode citation >> syntax that handles all of these elements. One option would be to >> use something very similar to pandoc's citation syntax (which >> I tried to follow as much as possible in the cite link descriptions >> of citeproc-orgref). [...] > The upshot was that we came to agreement on quite a few points about > what citation syntax should look like, and those points have been > implemented in Org syntax in the wip-cite branch of the Org repo. > (This branch is now long out of date and at the very least in need of > a rebase onto current master, I suspect.) The "wip-cite" branch is up-to-date with master (give or take last commits). It implements a good basis for a citation syntax in Org (tests included). Also, there is "wip-cite-awe" branch from Aaron Ecay (Cc'ed) which implements some support for exporting citations. "wip-cite-awe" is up-to-date and base on top of "wip-cite". > There are other aspects of the syntax we agreed on that are not > implemented yet; as I recall, the idea was to get a minimal agreeable > subset working, and then add to it based on real-world experience and > feedback. AFAIR, everything we agreed on is implemented in "wip-cite" branch. That's a good thing to know that citations may move forward. Let us know if you need help. Meanwhile, as Richard suggests, please have a look at "wip-cite" branch. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
