Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Stefan Nobis]

Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:

> 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})?

IMHO it is better to have such an important part of the citation in a
prominent position, therefore I'm in favour of Nicolas suggestion of

    [cite:subtype: ...]{backend options}

with the four variations for "cite" (i.e. "[cite:...]", "[Cite:...]",
"[(cite):...]", and "[(Cite):...]").

The drawback is that now subtype is hard or even impossible to vary
for different backends. Therefore I would suggest that either org has
to define the allowed values of subtype or else we should define that
subtype has to be handled by the user (e.g. for use in private filter
functions) and is out of the scope of org (maybe this would be a good
place of extensions like org-ref to plug in their machinery).

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

>   [cite:subtype ...]
>   [cite:subtype: ...]
>   [cite/subtype: ...]
>   [cite|subtype: ...]

I favor [cite:subtype: ...] a very tiny bit over the other variants.

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.