Re: [O] Citations, continued

[Rasmus]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick reply.  A very colorful (in Gnus at least) reply
follows.

>>>   1. [cite:@item1] says blah.
>>>   2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>
>> Why is "p." stripped here?
>
> I don't understand. Anyway, I now suggest

This is what I'm talking about:

>>>  2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>> ...              ^^^^
>>>  2.   Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>>>                ^^^


>>>   3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>>>   4. [cite:@item1: address@hidden p. 30; see also @item3] says blah.
>>
>> If item{1,2} have the same author biblatex[-chicago?] is smart enough to
>> compress it to "author (year1, year2)". So this example seems like a
>> downgrade if "-" is required to get the suggested output.
>
>   address@hidden address@hidden p. 30]
>
> Downgrade is a bit strong.

If I have to think about the /formatting/ out output rather than the
/contents/ downgrade is not too strong (IMO).  In the example above, why
not address@hidden @item2 p. 30]?


Another issue is that it's not transpose-words safe.  E.g. this output
seems bad: address@hidden @k2 30] => Y1 A2 (Y2, 30).

>>>   5. A citation group [cite:: see @item1 p. 34-35; also @item3 chap. 3].
>>
>> Why is chap. *not* stripped here?
>
> I do not understand either.

Compare to example 1 where p. is stripped.  Here chap. is /not/ stripped.
>>>  5.   A citation group (see Doe 2005, 34–35; also Doe and Roe 2007, chap. 
>>> 3).


>> Where does suffix and locator end here.  E.g. what is the output of
>>
>>      [cite:: @item1 33, pp. 35-37, and nowhere else].
>
>   [cite: @item1 pp. 33, 35-37, and nowhere else]
>
> suffix and locator are merged (AFAIU, in practice, there is no
> distinction between locator and suffix): "pp. 33, 35-37, and nowehere
> else".

But in your previous examples data is stripped from the locator.  If
there's no difference I think it would be better to not talk about this
locator 'cause it's extremely confusing.

>>>   9. Citation with suffix only [cite:: @item1 and nowhere else].
>>
>> How do I know this is a suffix?  Is locator a regexp like 
>>     \`[p\.0-9 ]+?
>
> See above.
>> What is [cite:@K s. 12] or [cite:@K side.? 12]?
>
> See above.

See also above.  From you explanation I would guess that at least these
two examples are wrong.  Is that correct?

>>>  2. [cite:@item1: p. 30] says blah.
>>>  2.   Doe (2005, 30) says blah.
>>>  3. [cite:@item1: p. 30, with suffix] says blah.
>>>  3.   Doe (2005, 30, with suffix) says blah.


>> What if I need several text cite keys.  Say @K{1,2} is the same author A,
>> and @K3 is B.  Then  [cite:@K1,@K2,@K3] should/could be something like 
>> A (Y1, Y2), and B (Y3).  How do I express this?
>
> Since A and B do not appear in the same parenthesis, two citations are
> needed:
>
>   address@hidden address@hidden, and address@hidden

This is a minor downgrade from biblatex.  The year thing is worse.

>> Some comments.
>> 
>>   1. Am I supposed to distinguish between a text citations and parenthesis
>>      citation based on a single ":"?  That's hard.  Why not distinguish
>>      based on the initial label?  E.g. {textcite, parentcite} or {citet,
>>      citep}.
>
> In fact, you're right, we don't need the colon, hence my other proposal.

This is much better.

>>   2. The idea of locator /and/ suffix is confusing.  The fact that your
>>      examples suggest seemingly random dropping of data from locator makes
>>      me want to avoid it even more.  It's a 'can of worms' to use a
>>      frequently emerging expression from this list.
>
> Again, there's no real need to extract a locator. At least, not at the
> parser level.

Let's stop talking about this locator then.  It appears nowhere else in
LaTeX or Org documentation.

>>   5. . . . Yet I still don't know how to get A1 (PRE Y2) with the above.
>>      Is the benchmark correct?
>
> You can't. Is this needed?

It's not unheard of.  I have used it in the past.  In LaTeX it's something 
like: 

    \citet[C]{k}    → A    (Y, C)
    \citet[B][]{k}  → A (B, Y)
    \citet[B][C]{k} → A (B, Y, C)

>> If parsing speed is key here I think that
>> [citet: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2] and [citep: pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 
>> post2]
>> are clearer solutions.  But this is clearly closer to a LaTeX than
>> pandoc.
>
> If "A1 (PRE Y2)" is really needed, then yes, I think that's good enough.
> Otherwise I think address@hidden is terse and nice.

It's nice.  @k1 / [pre @k1 post] for text and (pre @k1 post) for
parentheses expressions is nicer, but that's details.  I trust your
judgment on the technical merit of one idea versus the next.

Thanks,
Rasmus

-- 
El Rey ha muerto. ¡Larga vida al Rey!