Re: Footnote with citations and multiple paragraphs using pandoc-citeproc

[hgv <jbauchner-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5009 bytes --]

I am very familiar with CMOS but not with how it is implemented via CSLs, 
so forgive the technical ignorance of my answer. All of this applies to 
Chicago full note only.

I think CMOS is pretty clear about your question: they recommend no 
formatting outside of the citation text that comes from the bibliography 
file in pandoc-citeproc, but it's flexible and up to the 
author/publication: "A footnote or an endnote generally lists the author, 
title, and facts of publication, in that order. . . . The notes allow space 
for unusual types of sources as well as for commentary on the sources 
cited, making this system extremely flexible." 
See http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec002.html, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec014.html, 
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec015.html, and 
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec018.html.

Citation texts can come in three forms: full form (first citation), short 
form (last name, short title only), and "ibid." What follows the citation 
text can be punctuation (most often . , ; : but possibly also ? ! ] or 
otherwise—but this is left up to the author) or a space. As you know, in 
the short form of citation text, when the title is styled in quotation 
marks (e.g., journal article), a following comma needs to change places 
with the end quotation mark. All other following punctuation and spaces 
just remain as is (except with ibid. and a period; see next sentence). As 
ibid. comes with its own period, an following period needs to be suppressed 
(all other following punctuation remains; 
see http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec117.html). The only 
variable on the front end is with "ibid." and whether to cap or not cap the 
letter *i*—this is determined by whether the citation is starting a new 
sentence. I believe I saw elsewhere John writing that determining a 
sentence ending period and therefore a sentence beginning citation is 
difficult, so this would be a sticking point. 

So, as far as I can tell, if pandoc-citeproc expands a pandoc citation in a 
md note to the appropriate citation text (full, short, or ibid), with the 
above few conditions (and of course I may have missed some—but again, it's 
supposed to be flexible for the author/publication, if they want pp. or 
not, for instance), that would work. Maybe this is so ignorant of the 
challenges as to be offensive—but it seems like pandoc-citeproc is most of 
the way there. From my end, it seems like perhaps there would still be a 
use for the bracket elements of pandoc citations in order to indicate, for 
instance, where citations are within notes or to help facilitate making the 
above conditional changes based on non-citation sentence elements.

Another reason I would advocate for splitting the functions of 
pandoc-citeproc is the nice ability of md to stand alone as easily readable 
plain text. It would be great for footnotes to actually be md notes (even 
with pandoc-style citations). Perhaps this isn't so important for others.

And thanks, nickb, the line break works in my limited testing!


On Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:20:07 AM UTC-4, John MacFarlane wrote:
>
> +++ hgv [Sep 26 14 14:43 ]: 
> >A larger solution might be in giving up the ability of pandoc-citeproc to 
> >produce either inline citations or note citations. I understand how 
> useful 
> >this is, but if it doesn't actually work for one side of it (notes), I 
> >don't see the value. Of course, I only work with Chicago 
> note-bibliography, 
> >which is where my bias comes from. But it seems to be designed primarily 
> >for those who work with Chicago author-date (and other inline styles), 
> not 
> >really those who use both extensively. But as I'm sure this would entail 
> a 
> >fair amount of work to just get back to where it is now, I understand the 
> >downsides. 
>
> The question is this:  in footnote styles, how SHOULD a citation that 
> appears inside a note be formatted?  Clearly not as a footnote, but 
> unfortunately beyond that the style won't give us guidance.  Should 
> it be a separate sentence?  In parentheses?  In brackets?  These are 
> all stylistic variations, but the style can't help us here because 
> it's a note style. 
>
> If this question could be answered, perhaps progress could be made. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/434f4241-543a-423e-a8e6-0c8456f0c8fc%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5690 bytes --]