Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:

>> To support multi cites, we must first decide how the parsed will present
>> information, i.e., what are the properties in the following case
>>
>>   [cite:pre; pre1 @k1 post1; pre2 @k2 post2; post]
>
> I was thinking that this should yield a citation object with a structure like:
>
> ('citation ...
>   :common-prefix pre
>   :common-suffix post
>   :references ((:prefix pre1
>                 :key "k1"
>                 :suffix post1 ...)
>                (:prefix pre2
>                 :key "k2"
>                 :suffix post2 ...))
>   ...)
>
> Would that work?

Yes. I find it better than "entries/entry" as discussed with Rasmus.
I'll implement it in a few days.

> Oh, I did not realize there were outstanding issues with this.  I
> remember Rasmus not liking `&'.  I'm fine with changing it, though I
> cannot think of a better symbol.  Does someone think we should not have
> a way of indicating that a reference should produce a full bibliography
> entry?  Or that we should indicate it in some other way?

AFAIC, I don't think a dedicated symbol is useful. It can be implemented
through subtypes/properties. Besides LaTeX, could other back-end provide
that feature anyway?

I have no opinion about the :suppress-author symbol.


Regards,