Am 02.05.2020 um 18:34 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
It seems you didn't copy the list. I add it again.
No, I think that should be fine. (Perhaps also a fourth one for
author-only. And what about nocite?)
Sorry. I wasn't clear.
There is still full support for styles behind the suggested syntax,
e.g., [cite/author: ...], [cite/nocite: ...] (this one is odd). I was
pointing out that we cover Citeproc needs, and more.
Yeah, and I was pointing out that these might be necessary from a
CSL/citeproc perspective.
Author in text, the rest in a footnote.
So it is not really a new style; you can have cite-text on top of any
style. This might be a problem.
Why? I can't follow you here...
Either we invent an alternate syntax,
with duplicated styles, e.g.
[cite: ...] [cite/style: ...]
[cite*: ...] [cite*/style: ...]
this was already suggested in this thread (with "citet").
Or we make use of sub-styles, e.g.
[cite: ...] [cite/foot: ...]
[cite/text: ...] [cite/foot/text: ...]
This is ambiguous, tho: is it "cite/foot/text" or "cite/text/foot"?
Of course, this is an issue for BibLaTeX only. AFAIU, [cite/text: ...]
is totally unambiguous for Citeproc.
What do Bib(La)TeX users think about it?
I don't think it's a real problem. In CSL it's really clear. The CSL
style defines the overall style, i.e.:
cite => "Doe 2020" in parentheses or in a note
cite/test => "Doe" in text, "2020" in parentheses or in a note.
And I doubt it's a problem for biblatex:
cite => autocite (or just cite, but I think autocite is a better choice)
cite/text => textcite
cite/foot => footcite
I don't think duplicate styles or sub-styles are needed.
Best,
Denis
