Thanks for such a helpful, prompt reply. I've loved pandoc for a long time, but I had no idea the support was this good. You have a superb project here.

After consulting the style guides, it looks like pandoc is keeping with the times and I am not. I'm still a bit confused about your response to the second issue, though. Suppose I type:
Blah.^[@AugustineCityGod2008, 72.] Blah.^[Compare to the competing claim in @AugustineCityGod2008, 46.]

This then renders:
[1] Augustine, City of God, 72.
[2] Compare to the rather different claim in Augustine, ibid, 46.

Whereas the behavior I intend:
[1] Augustine, City of God, 72.
[2] Compare to the rather different claim in ibid, 46.

This is the behavior I achieved before upgrading pandoc, but I do not understand the directives I need to give in order to achieve it now. Or maybe I simply cannot.

Many thanks once again,
Joshua

On Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 10:01:25 AM UTC-8 John MacFarlane wrote:
Joshua <joshu...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:

> (This is a followup to "Removing parentheses around citations in
> footnotes": *thank you so much* for the fix there. The behavior I'm
> noticing now is different enough that I thought it worth a separate thread.)
>
> There seems to be an issue with "ibid." I'm using
> chicago-note-bibliography-with-ibid.csl and a dummy file as an example.
> Here's what I get with v2.11.1.1:
> [1] Dodds, *Euripedes*; see also Augustine, *The City of God*.
> [2] Augustine, *The City of God*, 72.
> [3] Augustine, ibid, 46.
> Note that there are two problems here: (1) it repeats the source in note 2
> instead of using "ibid",

It's not clear that's a problem. Indeed, we made a change to get
just this behavior. See

https://github.com/jgm/citeproc/commit/5aafa0e58ce37d56677bf88f52c4e6591e867703
https://github.com/jgm/pandoc#6813
https://github.com/citation-style-language/documentation#121

According to the spec, ibid is supposed to be triggered only when
the cited item (a) immediately follows another cite to the same
source within the same citation or (b) the previous citation
"consists of a single cite referencing the same item."

In this case there is some ambiguity about whether (b) is
satisfied -- technically, it is, because the previous citation
is just "Augustine, The City of God." However, that in-text
citation occurs in a note with another citation, such that the
whole thing is indistinguishable from a note citation containing
the two items. So we treat the item as not a "single cite" in
this case.

> and (2) it repeats the author in note 3.

That's because (I assume) you've used an author-in-text citation
form, which always prints the author. Note the difference
between

blah blah [@augustine:city].

and

blah blah^[@augustine:city].

IN the first case you have a normal citation, and the author name
will be suppressed. In the second case, you have a footnote with
an author-in-text citation.

We need this behavior because you might say
"@augustine:city says blah" in the main text, and we'd want
to get "Augustine(1) says blah" with a note "(1) Ibid."
This structure (author name + note with "ibid") gets transformed
to "Augustine, ibid." when it is found within a note.

--
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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/557267e8-3f30-45aa-8b58-50fc6ba71531n%40googlegroups.com.