Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> writes:
> [cite:subtype: ...]
>
> where "subtype" can be associated to any number of attributes, at user's
> discretion.
I like CITE:subtype for customization, where CITE is a member some set,
e.g. {cite citep/(cite) fncite citeauthor} or whatever. I like this cause
it's ∞ customizable due to the subtype.
I also like [·]{:key val}, though less so for citations. It could also be
used for "true" *inline* tasks, which would sometimes be quite nice.
> Again, I don't know if capitalization is important enough, but the added
> complexity in this case is negligible. Anyhow, I am not wedded to the
> idea.
Previously, I thought not. But since M-c is so nice I don't see why not.
[Then again, perhaps Cite could be "captured" automatically if it's after a
sentence-end (wait I see you use French spacing...! *sigh*).]
>> Aesthetically, this feels a little *too* much like BibLaTeX to me.
>
> I didn't know BibLaTeX used it at the time I suggested the idea.
> I didn't know BibLaTeX was deemed as aesthetically wrong either (why is
> it so?).
Biblatex is the gold standard. Maybe not in input-aesthetics..., but in
terms of amenability, usability and output it surely is. (No, I have
nothing to back this up).
—Rasmus
--
This message is brought to you by the department of redundant departments
