Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:19 PM Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:

> address@hidden writes:
>
> > Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and
> > concise, but why limit this to only one character?
>
> Because… it is good and concise? ;)
>
> > What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps
> > "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"?
>
> Note the latter introduces an ambiguity: [cite:see: @doe was right!].
> Fixing it requires two colons in default cite prefix: [cite::@doe].
> I don't think we want this.
>
> The former doesn't have this bias.

So cite-intext vs citet?

> > The simple syntax is great for most cases, but if you want to support
> > some of those not so common biblatex commands, this might be better.
>
> Alphanumeric suffix provides 62 combinations, which should hopefully be
> enough for any citation back-end out there (I'm looking at you
> biblatex). It's not terribly readable, tho, as you point out.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> This is a conciseness versus readability problem, not a technical one,
> as long as we do not allow too much, from a parser point of view.
>
> I have no strong opinion on the topic. It would be more valuable to hear
> from actual citations users. What would they prefer?

For me, I'm less concerned with the syntax question than I am with the
flexibility and clarity of knowing how to get the output I want.

If I have to look at some table of commands, or pause to remember
which command I need, that's providing friction to my work.

I will add that the biggest request of Zotero's citation support
(which only has the two forms: parenthetical and suppress author) is
textual citations, like natbib's citet.

Perhaps it would make sense to reserve that style in org?


Bruce