Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

[Denis Maier]

Am 02.05.2020 um 18:34 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:

> It seems you didn't copy the list. I add it again.
>
> > No, I think that should be fine. (Perhaps also a fourth one for
> > author-only. And what about nocite?)
> Sorry. I wasn't clear.
>
> There is still full support for styles behind the suggested syntax,
> e.g., [cite/author: ...], [cite/nocite: ...] (this one is odd). I was
> pointing out that we cover Citeproc needs, and more.
Yeah, and I was pointing out that these might be necessary from a 
CSL/citeproc perspective.
> > Author in text, the rest in a footnote.
> So it is not really a new style; you can have cite-text on top of any
> style. This might be a problem.
Why? I can't follow you here...
> Either we invent an alternate syntax,
> with duplicated styles, e.g.
>
>    [cite: ...]     [cite/style: ...]
>    [cite*: ...]    [cite*/style: ...]
>
> this was already suggested in this thread (with "citet").
>
> Or we make use of sub-styles, e.g.
>
>    [cite: ...]       [cite/foot: ...]
>    [cite/text: ...]  [cite/foot/text: ...]
>
> This is ambiguous, tho: is it "cite/foot/text" or "cite/text/foot"?
>
> Of course, this is an issue for BibLaTeX only. AFAIU, [cite/text: ...]
> is totally unambiguous for Citeproc.
>
> What do Bib(La)TeX users think about it?

I don't think it's a real problem. In CSL it's really clear. The CSL 
style defines the overall style, i.e.:

cite => "Doe 2020" in parentheses or in a note
cite/test => "Doe" in text, "2020" in parentheses or in a note.

And I doubt it's a problem for biblatex:

cite => autocite (or just cite, but I think autocite is a better choice)
cite/text => textcite
cite/foot => footcite

I don't think duplicate styles or sub-styles are needed.

Best,

Denis