Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Rasmus]

Hi Samuel,

Samuel Wales <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2/20/15, Rasmus <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to not
>> have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to
>> avoid this situation:
>>
>>     i just think the syntax we design should, if possible, be so general
>>     that it can be used for future features, *including 100% unrelated
>>     features*, and also for future subfeatures of any feature, including
>>     citations.
>
> this means that we are not thinking along the same lines.
>
> what i am describing is what i described years ago in several posts.
> it was mentioned recently [and on john's blog], then discussion went
> back to citation-specific syntax.

As I said an arbitrary [fun: arg :key val] is great.  It might solve what
I (perhaps unfairly) dubbed the "link-morass", since it has no
description.

> i am not proposing hijacking existing syntax; i am proposing the
> opposite.  i am proposing a single, new, unambiguous syntax.  e.g.
>
>   $[feature args... :key value ...]
> ...
>   $[color-start "red"]red$[color-end "red"]

^^^ This is already supported via a macros (for export at least):

{{{color-start red, red}}}
#+MACRO: color-start @@html:<span ⋯ style=f($1)>$2</span@@@@latex:⋯@@

> [i am just making this up as i go along to give you the general idea.]
>
> notice how we did not need to invent new syntax!

I sympathize with the idea.  Surely (some years ago I *wanted* to write
the generalized "link", but lacked time and skillz).

But citations is a different beast and fixed syntax is what is needed.

>>> to me, that means plist or similar.
>>
>> A lambda (that is a cite-subtype) is ∞ more customizable than a plist.
>
> i don't think i'd favor anything that must eval.  security issues,
> among other things.

I too worry about the NSA backdoors in self-insert-command. . .

If you don't allow a generalized link to follow a user-specified λs then
you don't have a flexible syntax that you expressed desire for above.
You'd still have to wait for somebody "upstream" to develop
[color-start:⋯].

>> A generalization of, say macros and link which look like [FUN: :key value]
>> or [FUN: arg]{:key value} may be appropriate, but it's something
>> different from the discussion at hand.
>
> i'm not sure i am explaining my point well here.

You are.  I just don't agree citation support should be generalized to a
more abstract level at this point.  What Org desperately needs in terms of
reproducible, scientific writing is a rigorous, standard syntax.

—Rasmus

-- 
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer