Hello, András Simonyi <andras.simo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > [cite:author @Jones2018] > > > Again, maybe it's worth having some shortcuts here for the common cases, > > but I think in general we want to try to avoid proliferation of basic > > citation commands. So for that reason I think we should just stick with > > the 'cite'/'(cite)' distinction as the two basic commands, perhaps with > > a more extensible/compositional syntax in each case for expressing the > > variations on these two basic types of citation. > > Again, I very much agree with the general direction of these proposals, > but doesn't this mean that the citation element should have an attribute > to represent which parts of an 'in text' citation are meant to be in the > main text? (I think currently the only citation-specific attributes in > the wip-cite branch are 'prefix', 'suffix' and 'parenthetical'.) IIRC, in the proposal above was, i.e., [cite:foo: @Jones2018], "foo" would be a well-defined style. IOW, it could cover much more than a simple "author". > I'd like to add that I don't consider the choice of the two citation > commands a crucial one, 'cite' as 'in main text' and '(cite)' as > 'parenthetical' could also be a perfectly usable syntax/semantics, > especially if -- as Richard suggests -- we provide extension points to > cover more complex use cases. The syntax above might be such an extension point. It requires, however, to find a way to associate a style definition to a given key. Thank you to the answers of everyone involved so far. It's nice to see this moving forward. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou