From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.text.pandoc/569 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nathan Gass Newsgroups: gmane.text.pandoc Subject: Re: pandoc/citeproc issues: multiple bibliographies, nocite, citeonly Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:45:52 +0100 Message-ID: <4CF43B30.9050400@trizeps.ch> References: <20101121193229.GB25657@protagoras.phil.berkeley.edu> <4CE9AABB.1070705@informatik.uni-marburg.de> <4CEC6A61.1000309@trizeps.ch> <20101124033315.GC25133@protagoras.phil.berkeley.edu> <20101124050631.GA28014@protagoras.phil.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291074368 25631 80.91.229.12 (29 Nov 2010 23:46:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:46:08 +0000 (UTC) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Original-X-From: pandoc-discuss+bncCMXB5ZuNCxCy9tDnBBoEjC2jbQ-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Tue Nov 30 00:46:03 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gtp-pandoc-discuss@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-fx0-f58.google.com ([209.85.161.58]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PNDQ2-0002SR-Pe for gtp-pandoc-discuss@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:46:02 +0100 Original-Received: by fxm13 with SMTP id 13sf1320314fxm.3 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:46:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=sJ23UgxJCswuXhrb16fz7c7Uhkyj79fTL6klnhWuGZk=; b=afuu92aIvE6KgPC2OR6k1qW3m2AVSSS+bOAVcIBq7K1PNYcBua8gyI0ZYHI0lrHT7n 1framzcJAbTfuJ4f/WRb1wJJSjGCf69Y4toiNgWypkJeS3Zu1yTQUaV+AjxObZeToHZ7 7aODgNVl8O9+zh0ve1GhqjY/KZArNc7CmZUew= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=vNi5omYpcutHlMfI9iRCWkwrU2MyzL9ls01bn7EYQm4G4k1BhsIGWxbMjS0xw97OX6 Dll5q3sMER8CdzYTxRM9ug3m0UHwfRtdfH52AoO2LR7NGqXk+1QK+gu3D6QzeakXAcg5 ysrEERIYA5c5ZWtlOW+54obfL7NVr21stjMcE= Original-Received: by 10.223.161.195 with SMTP id s3mr270140fax.26.1291074354693; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Original-Received: by 10.204.145.26 with SMTP id b26ls1151382bkv.3.p; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:45:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.204.60.84 with SMTP id o20mr711498bkh.7.1291074353847; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:45:53 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.204.60.84 with SMTP id o20mr711497bkh.7.1291074353817; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:45:53 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from lvps178-77-97-180.dedicated.hosteurope.de (lvps178-77-97-180.dedicated.hosteurope.de [178.77.97.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j16si798496bkd.6.2010.11.29.15.45.53; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 178.77.97.180 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of xabbu-8UOIJiGH10pyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org) client-ip=178.77.97.180; Original-Received: from 75-100.199-178.cust.bluewin.ch ([178.199.100.75] helo=vroomfondel.local) by lvps178-77-97-180.dedicated.hosteurope.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PNDPt-0001Yv-6n for pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:45:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: <20101124050631.GA28014-nFAEphtLEs+AA6luYCgp0U1S2cYJDpTV9nwVQlTi/Pw@public.gmane.org> X-Original-Sender: xabbu-8UOIJiGH10pyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 178.77.97.180 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of xabbu-8UOIJiGH10pyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org) smtp.mail=xabbu-8UOIJiGH10pyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org; contact pandoc-discuss+owners-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Original-Sender: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.text.pandoc:569 Archived-At: On 24.11.10 06:06, John MacFarlane wrote: > +++ John MacFarlane [Nov 23 10 19:33 ]: >> +++ Nathan Gass [Nov 24 10 02:29 ]: >>> >>> Other possibilities would be to add some label syntax, similar to >>> the \label{} of latex, to just recognize most or even all possible >>> headers for such a section, or use a special code block, which is at >>> least clearly markdown syntax. Actually, when I think about it, the >>> last one strikes me as a very good alternative. So instead of >>> >>> >>> some config >>> >>> >>> we simply use >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~ {.reference} >>> some config >>> ~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> I'm open to suggestions other than the HTMLish syntax. But I don't >> think this is obviously better. For one thing, it looks like a code >> block. And we'd have to implement some mini-language inside the >> block to specify the includes, excludes, source, etc. If we use >> XML, we're using something that's already familiar. I see the possibilities of markdown quite a bit broader than XML. I will want to show my markdown documents to people and encourage them to use it themself, who will not know XML at all and not be very comfortable editing it. Most of them will only need one Bibliography with all cited works and so not use any special syntax for the more complex use-cases. For me code blocks are a very specialized feature, which is absolutely useless in many usages of markdown and pandoc. I therefore tend to steal this syntax for arbitrary plugins. That is why I considered this a good idea. But I like your idea below better anyway. >> >> One possibility would be a special attribute on a header: >> >> # Works cited {.bibliography src="mybib.json"} >> >> # References {.bibliography src="foo.bib" include="item2,item3" >> omit="item4" if-year="1999" only-if-type="primary"} I like this, especially as this syntax would allow the addition of other features without adding new syntax later on. > > PS. I'm sorely tempted to put off implementing these complexities > til later, and release a simple version of pandoc/citeproc that just > constructs a bibliography of works cited in the document and puts > them at the end, more or less the way it does now. +1 one to that The only problem I see with that plan is the following: The sensible default now would be to always add a bibliography. On the other hand, if we have a syntax to include the bibliography where ever we want, the better default would be to not include any bibliography per default. But I think an appropriate warning for future incompatible changes would be enough in this case, as the documents will be easy enough to convert. Nathan