Sorry to drag up an old thread, but after a long time thinking about 
whether there was a way to achieve cleaner footnote citations via 
pandoc-citeproc (which I and several others have run into trouble with; 
see https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/82 
and https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/69 in addition to this 
thread), I had a idea. 

I altered the CSL file of chicago-fullnote-bibliography.csl, changing the 
class attribute of the root style element from "notes" to "in-text": <style 
xmlns="http://purl.org/net/xbiblio/csl" class="in-text" version="1.0" 
demote-non-dropping-particle="never" page-range-format="chicago">. In my 
limited testing going from md to tex via pandoc, citations placed in 
markdown footnotes *and* in brackets for pandoc-citeproc are rendered with 
a lot more control regarding punctuation, paragraphs, multiple citations, 
and so on. I was able to get all the problems I was having here 
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/D-fD7phDB4w) to 
work with this.

So that means a note like:

"This is my test sentence.[^fn1]

[^fn1]: [This is my test @citation, 98 and passim.]
    
    [With a second graf. @citaiton2.]"

Anyway, as I said, this was just a few very basic tests, so YMMV. And of 
course there may be some unintended consequences that I haven't foreseen. 
But I thought others who have been frustrated by this might want to 
experiment!

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> So this seems a key distinction; that the code "doesn't have access to 
> enough of the document context."
>
> That shouldn't be the case with pandoc (or with the XSLT I originally 
> started with), since it's a batch process. I'd guess pandoc would be able 
> to distinguish the two types of citations, and so it'd just be a question 
> of how to format them differently. Though I don't have time to think about 
> this deeply ATM, something like Jesse's heuristic may work.
>
> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:55:24 PM UTC-4, Frank Bennett wrote:
>>
>> This has been a problem for the note styles forever. MLZ is starting to 
>> attract users in the legal domain, and I have had occasional reports of 
>> exactly this problem. Several users have suggested just removing terminal 
>> punctuation from the style altogether, but I've been reluctant to go the 
>> "big hammer" route in that way.
>>
>> I finally moved on a solution that involves changes in MLZ and 
>> citeproc-js alone, without changes in the styles themselves. In a given 
>> document, the user is given the option of suppressing terminal punctuation 
>> on all citations. If selected, the option takes effect for all citation 
>> clusters (regardless of context), without possibility of override, but 
>> affects only note styles (class="note"). If the global option is *not* 
>> selected, terminal punctuation can be suppressed on individual citations. 
>> This seems to be satisfactory (the MLZ community is small, but there are 
>> active users in the pool and I haven't had any complaints).
>>
>> The behaviour is MLZ is driven by manual user adjustments to the document 
>> and citation settings; it's not automagic because citeproc-js (running in 
>> MLZ at least) doesn't have access to enough of the document context. I 
>> suspect that it would hard to automate completely, though.
>>
>> Frank Bennett
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:14:14 AM UTC+9, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>>
>>> 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. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> John (or anyone else interested in this issue) - have you checked how 
>>> citeproc-js (Zotero and such) deals with this? 
>>>
>>> This has been a known issue since the foundation of CSL (I distinctly 
>>> remember talking in terms of a distinction between "footnoted citations" 
>>> and "citations in footnotes" a long time ago), so I have to believe it's 
>>> been solved, even if I don't remember how. 
>>>
>>

-- 
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/bbc0024c-fd36-476d-aea3-3a421c25832d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.