Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Bruce D'Arcus]

First, thanks for your work on this Nicolas; really awesome to see the progress!

I'm just going to address your syntax/cite command question.

I don't have concerns about the other details, and I think others are
better positioned to comment on those ...

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:20 PM Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:

...

> I assume [cite:...] is the default citation style, defined at the
> citation processor's level. Styled citations override locally the
> default style. Again, a processor not handling a given style is expected
> to fallback to default style.
>
> As a consequence, there is no special syntax for "author-in-text" style.
> But we can suggest one for back-end processors. We might want to stick
> to the most complete one, BibLaTeX, IIUC, and /require/ processors to
> support, at least:
>
>   [cite/text: ...]
>   [cite/paren: ...]
>
> With this bare minimum, we ensure documents are somehow portable between
> processors, and, therefore, export back-ends.

...

So in this approach, we have a single core "cite" command, and
everything else is a namespaced extension?

My understanding, though, is that org "cite" would default to your
last example I quote above (in natibib, citep); that there's no need
for a dedicated "cite/paren" command, either reserved or not.

So by default, the "cite" command might yield something like this on
output (of course, depending on processor)?

- to natbib/latex = "\citep{doe18}"

For final HTML output (say using citeproc-el/org), something like:

- author-date = "(Doe, 2018)"
- number = "[3]"
- note = "2" (represented as a footnote or endnote, of course)

... etc.

And then we need a mechanism to do the textual variant (natbib citet);
"cite/text" makes sense to me.

Given how common that is (In natbib, it and citep are the two core
commands), is there any downside to reserving that?

And then I guess the "suppress-author" variant would be something like
"cite/year" or "cite/suppress-author"?

Bruce