On Mon, Nov 30 2020, BPJ wrote:
> I agree that [/@foo] looks like some kind of closing tag. I would prefer
> [+@foo], to the extent that it can be construed as the opposite of [-@foo],
> but can it really?

IMHO no, it can't. [@foo] is "(Foo 2013)", so [-@foo] being "(2013)" makes kinda
sense, at least intuitively, because something is taken away, or "subtracted".
But "Foo (2013)" doesn't add anything compared to "(Foo 2013)".

That doesn't mean that [+@foo] would be a terrible choice, though. Given the
constraint that brackets are required, [+@foo] is probably as good an option as
any.


--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments

--
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@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/87h7p7nt2a.fsf%40fastmail.fm.