Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Richard Lawrence]

Hi Tom,

address@hidden (Thomas S. Dye) writes:

> Thanks for your thoughtful responses and your work on the citation
> syntax.  My "author" concerns have been addressed in this thread and I
> look forward to development now.  I'm +1 and optimistic about the switch
> from home-brew links to citations in my Org mode work.

Great!  I'm really glad to hear that.

Actually, your post has convinced me that it may be worth allowing some
explicit name for a type in the [cite: ...] part of the syntax, although
I am still leery about what this would mean for non-LaTeX backends.  I
did not appreciate before that switching from one type to another is
something you probably want to be able to do really easily, like with
query-replace, even if you are making use of the other parts of the
syntax to express distinctions like in-text vs. parenthetical citations.

So, two questions for the group:

1) Is it worth allowing a name for a user-defined type in the [cite: ...]
part, or is it OK to confine user-defined types to the second part
(like: [cite: ...] %%(:type foo) or [cite: ...]{:type foo})?

2) If a user-defined type can go in the [cite: ...] part, where should
it go?  Nicolas has suggested:

  [cite:subtype ...]

or 

  [cite:subtype: ...]

I would personally (aesthetically, don't ask me why) prefer:

  [cite/subtype: ...]

or

  [cite|subtype: ...]

But maybe there are other options I haven't thought of.  

Best,
Richard