I have no opinion on whether it's time for a merge or not, but please don't wait up for me.
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I also remember that Christian Moe suggested an alternate syntax for > citations. He might want to point out what is missing from @cite syntax > and if he still prefers his idea. I did, but my suggestions did not get any traction back when a native citation syntax was first being discussed on the list. Regrettably, I have not managed to follow up my proposal properly, then or now -- not even to the point of updating my own sample code after a Zotero development broke it last year -- and I probably won't in the foreseeable near future. So I wouldn't want to hold back a community-developed solution on account that I had a different idea. My proposal was for a different approach (parsing a "natural-looking" citation syntax like (Smith 1990: p.3)), which I thought could be both more user-friendly and more aesthetically pleasing in plain text. It was not for improvements to the @cite syntax, so I don't actually know what is missing from the latter, if anything. I was very excited about the citeproc contributon, but I have not found the time to test it out.
