[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wip-cite-new] Merging tomorrow?

From: John Kitchin
Subject: Re: [wip-cite-new] Merging tomorrow?
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 07:33:54 -0400

My intuition is that crossrefs are separate from the citations. In org-ref, they are separate link types like ref:xxx, pageref:xxx. eqref:xxx, etc. They also use a different source of candidates than cites do.


Professor John Kitchin (he/him/his)
Doherty Hall A207F
Department of Chemical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:16 AM Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:26 AM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
> Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:
> > Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>> wip-cite-new deals with citing from bibliographies, but I don't think it
> >>> deals with within-document referencing --- should it?
> >
> >> 1. Should it?
> >> 1. Maybe.
> >
> > I feel like it would fit. With everything that's been done for
> > citations, this feels like it may be a rather minor addition (or at
> > least this is what I hope).
> >
> >> 2. Can it? Could the design be extended to include internal referencing?
> >> 2. I think so. You'd just need a way to include internal targets in
> >> addition to the citation-references (keys); for illustration,
> >> something like [cite:#some-if].
> >
> > I can't claim to have thought about this that much either, but something
> > like [cite:#some-fig] would seem to fit.
> >
> >> 3. If yes to both, should that hold back merger now?
> >> 3. No.
> >
> > I don't think this should hold up the merge either, but it's relevant in
> > the overall nature of the feature and perhaps could be shoehorned in
> > following the merge? I feel like this is one small quite simple case and
> > most of the thinking required has already been done. I'm not sure
> > though, I'd go with whatever Nic's thought are on this.
> At this point, I don't have enough understanding of the problem to have
> an opinion. IIUC, your example does not even mention citations. How
> should it be used, what should be the output in LaTeX, and in UTF-8
> export? This is not clear to me.
> What can I say however is: if this feature implies to change, or extend,
> syntax, then it is /de facto/ a blocker for the merge, and needs to be
> sorted out.

As I was hinting, I don't know this area well either.

I think the first question is the "should" one; whether this is
in-scope of this module.

I wasn't sure, so said "maybe".

Joost says "no."

In latex, such internal references are not citations though; they use
a different mechanism.

Does that not suggest, Timothy, that this might be out-of-scope for
this module; that Joost is right?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]