On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 07:12:54AM -0800, John MacFarlane wrote:
> +++ Nathan Gass [Nov 26 10 13:33 ]:
> > On 24.11.10 17:09, John MacFarlane wrote:
> > >I'm always willing to consider an atomic patch, that makes one
> > >surveyable change to the current code base. Just email me the patch, though --
> > >much easier for me than dealing with github.
> > >
> > >We should probably agree about the issue about commas first, though.
> > 
> > I have attached patches which reproduce the current behavior
> > regarding commas. This patch reproduces the old code exactly for the
> > given test files.
> > 
> > They would differ on locators which contain markup. AFAIK the old
> > code did not parce the markup, and include the symbols verbatim in
> > the locator. The new code does not recognize a locator with markup
> > and instead leave it in the suffix. So the new code keeps the markup
> > in locators, but looses the special locator handling citeproc
> > provides.
> > 
> > I can argue for this solution as well as for simply dropping the
> > markup (therefore keeping citeprocs locator handling but loosing
> > markup in locators). If somebody really wants to include a verbatim
> > * or similar in the locator, I think it is more consistent to
> > require him to escape it.
> > 
> > Should I provide another patch with some tests for markup inside of
> > citations?
> 
> Thanks for the patch.  I applied your patches, then rewrote the locator
> parsing using Parsec -- this is easier for me to understand and
> maintain.  The current code also strips formatting from the locator
> prefix, as you wanted.
> 
> Note:  anyone tracking the development version will need to update
> pandoc-types as well.
> 

I'm attaching a patch to introduce a new parameter for the citeproc
function: I implemented to output filtering stuff, so if we want
multiple bibliographies and bibliographic entry filtering we only need
to implement the pandoc side.

I fixed the page range formatting. Still the tests will fail, since in
some of your recent changes I saw that the suffix lost the initial
comma (it used to be ", a suffix" while now it is " a suffix"). This
is a pandoc regression, so you'll probably want to fix the suffix
parser.

If a reference is not found now an error will be produced by the
processor.

Andrea

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pandoc-discuss?hl=en.