Richard Lawrence <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> What about the following set?
>>
>> bold code entity italic latex-fragment line-break strike-through
>> subscript superscript underline superscript
>
> That would work fine for me in prefixes and suffixes.
Fair enough.
> I guess I could live with this, but to be honest, I much prefer the
> Pandoc way.
Actually, there is another, shorter possibility:
- in-text citation
[KEY] or [KEY suffix]
[@item1] or [@item1 p. 30] or [@item1 p. 30, with suffix]
- out-text citation
[cite: prefix? key suffix?; prefix2? key2 suffix2? ...]
[cite: see @item1 p. 34-35] or [cite: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and
nowhere else] or [cite: -@item1 p. 44] or even [cite: see @item1 p.
34-35; also @item3 chap. 3]
IMO it is quite readable.
> The Pandoc syntax has a nice congruence between the source file and
> the output: if a cite key is inside the brackets in the source, the
> reference is inside the brackets in the output, and if it's outside in
> the source, it's outside in the output. This convention seems
> natural, easy to remember, and very readable -- at least if, like me
> (and I would guess many others), you use author names in cite keys.
This can be partly (i.e. visually) solved with overlays, e.g., you write
[@item1: p. 30] and you see @item1 (p. 30) in the buffer. IMO, this is
overkill, though.
> So as an author, I prefer the Pandoc way, but I understand there are
> other considerations. If we must have the tag for performance
> reasons, I would prefer using two different tags to represent the two
> cases; I suggest borrowing (from LaTeX's natbib package) "citet" for
> in-text and "citep" for bracketed citations , but I don't really care
> as long as they're easy to type, and it's easy to change one to the
> other.
IMO, my current proposal is clearer.
Also, you can switch to in-text to out-text (or the other way) just by
adding (or removing) cite: at the beginning of the citation.
Regards,
