On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:19 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> denis.maier.li...@mailbox.org writes: > > > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and > > concise, but why limit this to only one character? > > Because… it is good and concise? ;) > > > What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps > > "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"? > > Note the latter introduces an ambiguity: [cite:see: @doe was right!]. > Fixing it requires two colons in default cite prefix: [cite::@doe]. > I don't think we want this. > > The former doesn't have this bias. So cite-intext vs citet? > > The simple syntax is great for most cases, but if you want to support > > some of those not so common biblatex commands, this might be better. > > Alphanumeric suffix provides 62 combinations, which should hopefully be > enough for any citation back-end out there (I'm looking at you > biblatex). It's not terribly readable, tho, as you point out. > > > What do you think? > > This is a conciseness versus readability problem, not a technical one, > as long as we do not allow too much, from a parser point of view. > > I have no strong opinion on the topic. It would be more valuable to hear > from actual citations users. What would they prefer? For me, I'm less concerned with the syntax question than I am with the flexibility and clarity of knowing how to get the output I want. If I have to look at some table of commands, or pause to remember which command I need, that's providing friction to my work. I will add that the biggest request of Zotero's citation support (which only has the two forms: parenthetical and suppress author) is textual citations, like natbib's citet. Perhaps it would make sense to reserve that style in org? Bruce
