Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Matt Price]

In
On Feb 15, 2015 2:43 PM, "Thomas S. Dye" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> 1) It is easier for me to have the citation command in one place.  The
> decision to represent selected aspects of the citation command in the
> syntax and other parts in extensions means that I'd have to learn the
> syntax and then remember which aspects were chosen for representation
> and which I'd need to develop through extensions of my own.  This is a
> lot more work than I do now to get exactly what I want through links.
> I'm keen to simplify the authoring process, not make it more complex.
>
> 2) Treating footnote citations differently from author-date citations is
> a non-starter for me.  When Science turns me away and the editor
> suggests that my rant is well suited for another journal, one that
> happens to use author-date citations, I'll just search all my citation
> links and replace footcite with parencite before exporting the rant to
> the suggested journal.  IIUC, with the official Org mode syntax, I'd be
> faced with the tedious process of cutting and pasting footnote text back
> into the document body.

I am generally much more positive than Thomas,  being,  for the most part,  ecstatic at the thought of a built-in citation syntax which will make citations in org workable for bumbling nonprogrammers like myself.

However,  I agree that the distinction between parenthetical and footnotes citations is unhelpful for me.  Whenever I switch between Chicago and APA,  for instance,  zotero converts my footnotes to parenthetical expressions. To me this seems an essential feature.

Thanks Richard and everyone else for the continued hard work!

Matt

Matt

> Also, I'm 0 because there is no need to satisfy me with the official
> citation syntax.  I'm able to achieve my goals fully in Org mode without
> it.
>
>