On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 1:31 PM John Kitchin <jkitc...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
... > > It's just there needs to be some way to distinguish among types of > > targets, I think. > > At the risk of repeating myself, I don't think this is true. Just to clarify ...yes, I agree with you; I wrote that before the subsequent back-and-forth yesterday. So no need to repeat: we are now in closer agreement than we were before the discussion :-) > As I have thought about this more, the line between citations and > cross-references has blurred. In org-ref, they were handled the same > way, with org-links (although each link had its own export function). > For both cites and refs, the links are just pointers, and in both cases > it is possible for them to point to things within the same document. > Even in LaTeX, when we submit a manuscript, the citation references are > embedded in a standalone tex file, so every link is to an internal > location. Let's step back though: What is the ideal UX for org users? Per my response to Timothy yesterday, and what I have said elsewhere about how citations and cross-references are handled elsewhere in the software universe, I think it's not to remove the distinction, but rather to clarify it. In effect, the choice is between: 1. org-cite-insert for both citations and cross-refernces 2. org-cite-insert for the former, org-ref-insert for the latter Even in org-ref, you adopted 2.; there's a separate command and menu entry for each, and a different UI. Do you now think that was a bad decision in retrospect? Bruce
