"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes:
> I can't see that it's necessary to have a fourth, because I think the
> result of that would be this, which doesn't make any sense.
>
> 4. "Doe blah blah {2017}"/"Doe blah blah {[3]}" ->
> author-in-text+suppress-author command
>
> Let us know what you think?
I think this could sometimes make sense. Granted, it wouldn't be very
often, but if e.g. you are citing something inside a wider parenthetical
remark, like:
(Blah blah. However, Doe showed that not-blah; see her -@doe17.)
I can imagine that some style guides might forbid putting nested
parentheses in that position, so having a way to render "2017" instead
of "(2017)" would be useful.
Another case: I can imagine citation styles that use e.g. a work's title
(instead of its year) as the non-author identifier, in which case it
would often make sense to say things like
Doe depicts blah in her -@doe17
as a way to output things like
Doe depicts blah in her /Wondrous Novel/
Again, I don't know how important this is, or how widely used it would
be, but those are at least a couple of possibilities.
On the other hand, I notice that pandoc does not distinguish these
cases, at least with the default citation style; pandoc renders both
-@doe17 and [-@doe17] like "(2017)", so maybe it's not that important.
> ... notwithstanding that, I think Nicolas' latest proposed syntax
> would support this anyway.
>
> [citet:-@doe17]
Great. No objections from this corner, then!
--
Best,
Richard
