Re: [O] Citations, continued

[Rasmus]

Hi,

I realize you list Pandoc features, but I will still point out some issues
with this syntax.

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:

> Specifically I think we need the following categories, all of which
> would be objects:
>   - key
>   - prefix / pre-text
>   - suffix / post-text
>   - locator

What is the point of an locator?  Why not just suffix?  Presumably, if I
want to put pp. in front of my page numbers or whatever I can do it with
a filter or manually.


> These should have a grammar like the following, based on my
> (reverse-engineered) understanding of the Pandoc syntax for citations:
> ...
>   - A key optionally begins with '-', and obligatorily contains '@'
>     followed by a string of charcters which begins with a letter or '_',
>     and may contain alphanumeric characters and the following internal
>     punctuation characters:
>        :.#$%&-+?<>~/

I fail to understand this feature.  The Pandoc manual uses something like
this an example: A said X in @-key; which I think is bad practice.  In
latex you'd write \citeauthor{key} said X in \citeyear{key}.  Unless we
can access other keys, why adopt a special operator for year?  Why not
title or author which are e.g. useful when using number citations?q

>   - An unbracketed citation consists of a key, optionally followed by a
>     locator which is enclosed in '[' ']'

This is another, to me, illogical structure.

     [A @key B]
     @key [B]

It is not obvious that [B] relates to @key in the second example.

–Rasmus

-- 
This message is brought to you by the department of redundant departments