Footnote with citations and multiple paragraphs using pandoc-citeproc

Footnote with citations and multiple paragraphs using pandoc-citeproc

[hgv]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

Hi all,

Is there any way to use pandoc-citeproc to process citations (specifically 
for chicago-fullnote-bibliography.csl for md to tex) and have 
multiparagraph footnotes with citations in them? My understanding is that, 
as pandoc-citeproc works to automatically make footnotes when called for by 
the csl, all footnotes that have citations in them should be formatted only 
with brackets, not in full md foonotes. But only an md footnote (not an 
line one) can handle multiple paragraphs. Am I missing something? Sticking 
pandoc citations in md footnotes (with or without brackets) produces 
undesired results. Thanks!

hgv

-- 
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/cf5b21a4-0495-47bc-872f-091626a4ef0a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1668 bytes --]

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

[Andrew Dunning]

I've run into the same problem, and it seems that it's not currently possible; indeed, one cannot even have multi-sentence citations using pandoc-citeproc. See <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/69>.

On 26 Sep 2014, at 2:50 p.m., hgv <jbauchner-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Is there any way to use pandoc-citeproc to process citations (specifically for chicago-fullnote-bibliography.csl for md to tex) and have multiparagraph footnotes with citations in them? My understanding is that, as pandoc-citeproc works to automatically make footnotes when called for by the csl, all footnotes that have citations in them should be formatted only with brackets, not in full md foonotes. But only an md footnote (not an line one) can handle multiple paragraphs. Am I missing something? Sticking pandoc citations in md footnotes (with or without brackets) produces undesired results. Thanks!
> 
> hgv
> 
> -- 
> 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/cf5b21a4-0495-47bc-872f-091626a4ef0a%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/3FDE0D22-3F5C-4471-9451-CD0FA4E96531%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John MacFarlane]

There's also some relevant discussion at
<https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/82>.
It's an issue that comes up only for footnote styles:  how
to deal with citations that are already in footnotes?
Perhaps pandoc-citeproc can be improved here, but it's
not entirely clear what to do.


+++ Andrew Dunning [Sep 26 14 16:09 ]:
>I've run into the same problem, and it seems that it's not currently possible; indeed, one cannot even have multi-sentence citations using pandoc-citeproc. See <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/69>.
>
>On 26 Sep 2014, at 2:50 p.m., hgv <jbauchner-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is there any way to use pandoc-citeproc to process citations (specifically for chicago-fullnote-bibliography.csl for md to tex) and have multiparagraph footnotes with citations in them? My understanding is that, as pandoc-citeproc works to automatically make footnotes when called for by the csl, all footnotes that have citations in them should be formatted only with brackets, not in full md foonotes. But only an md footnote (not an line one) can handle multiple paragraphs. Am I missing something? Sticking pandoc citations in md footnotes (with or without brackets) produces undesired results. Thanks!
>>
>> hgv
>>
>> --
>> 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/cf5b21a4-0495-47bc-872f-091626a4ef0a%40googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>-- 
>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/3FDE0D22-3F5C-4471-9451-CD0FA4E96531%40gmail.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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/20140926210311.GB20437%40berkeley.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[hgv]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4599 bytes --]

OK yes—it seems like this difficulty has been bugging people all summer (my 
struggles began 
here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/D-fD7phDB4w). 
One intermediate step would be to clarify the Read Me, so people stop 
trying to get pandoc-citeproc to work with citations in md footnotes. 

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.

Of course, I remain deeply grateful for pandoc overall, regardless of this 
issue.

On a related note, perhaps there are other humanists and fellow travelers 
on this board who use note citation styles (primarily Chicago 
note-bibliography, I'd assume) successfully with pandoc-citeproc—long 
footnotes and all? Any tips or workarounds?

On Friday, September 26, 2014 5:03:24 PM UTC-4, John MacFarlane wrote:
>
> There's also some relevant discussion at 
> <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/82>. 
> It's an issue that comes up only for footnote styles:  how 
> to deal with citations that are already in footnotes? 
> Perhaps pandoc-citeproc can be improved here, but it's 
> not entirely clear what to do. 
>
>
> +++ Andrew Dunning [Sep 26 14 16:09 ]: 
> >I've run into the same problem, and it seems that it's not currently 
> possible; indeed, one cannot even have multi-sentence citations using 
> pandoc-citeproc. See <https://github.com/jgm/pandoc-citeproc/issues/69>. 
> > 
> >On 26 Sep 2014, at 2:50 p.m., hgv <jbau...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> >> Hi all, 
> >> 
> >> Is there any way to use pandoc-citeproc to process citations 
> (specifically for chicago-fullnote-bibliography.csl for md to tex) and have 
> multiparagraph footnotes with citations in them? My understanding is that, 
> as pandoc-citeproc works to automatically make footnotes when called for by 
> the csl, all footnotes that have citations in them should be formatted only 
> with brackets, not in full md foonotes. But only an md footnote (not an 
> line one) can handle multiple paragraphs. Am I missing something? Sticking 
> pandoc citations in md footnotes (with or without brackets) produces 
> undesired results. Thanks! 
> >> 
> >> hgv 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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-discus...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org <javascript:>. 
> >> To post to this group, send email to pandoc-...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org 
> <javascript:>. 
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/cf5b21a4-0495-47bc-872f-091626a4ef0a%40googlegroups.com. 
>
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> > 
> >-- 
> >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-discus...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org <javascript:>. 
> >To post to this group, send email to pandoc-...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org 
> <javascript:>. 
> >To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/3FDE0D22-3F5C-4471-9451-CD0FA4E96531%40gmail.com. 
>
> >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>

-- 
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/246e0391-eb53-40d3-bb59-dc1c97d94ebb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8239 bytes --]

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

[John MacFarlane]

+++ 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.

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

[nickbart1980-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2339 bytes --]

> A larger solution might be in giving up the ability of pandoc-citeproc to 
produce either inline citations or note citations.

I, for one, strongly oppose this idea.

As to some possible workaround for "multiparagraph footnotes": If newlines 
instead of paragraph breaks are acceptable, then inserting 
space-space-return in the middle of a citation a the spot when you want a 
linebreak to appear seems to do the trick, e.g., 

````
Foo [see @item1.  
See also @item2].
````

(A backslash followed by a return did not work however when I tried it.)

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 4:20:07 AM UTC, 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/2d62aa21-e80c-4169-967e-100f6eb6db26%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3010 bytes --]

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

[hgv]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Jesse Rosenthal]

John MacFarlane <jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 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.

Flipping through books from a number of presses with footnote styles on
my desk, the following seems to be the rule:

 1. A footnote containing only the citation should be identical to an
    @-citation. I.e, in a footnote style:

        foo.[^1]

        [^1]: [@dickens:dorrit, p. 15]

        ==

        foo [@dickens:dorrit, p. 15]

 2. A footnote containing the citation mixed in with other text should
    be separated from that text by a period. So

        foo. [^1]

        [^1]: "Blah blah blah" [@dickens:dorrit, p. 15].

        ==

        foo. [^1]

        [^1]: "Blah blah blah." Charles Dickens, _Little Dorrit_,
              ed. Stephen Wall and Helen Small (New York: Penguin,
              1998), 15.

    (or whatever) depending on the style.

  3. Anything else should be integrated into the text without 
     being set off by a period.

I would propose the following heuristic for distinguishing between (2) and
(3): if the citation is followed by a period, it should be set off by a
period, as in (2); if it isn't punctuation is left to the author.

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

[Bruce D'Arcus]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2171 bytes --]

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/945be504-882b-46e8-b653-e373d579008b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2849 bytes --]

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

[Frank Bennett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3559 bytes --]

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/d62aab34-b6d9-4aa9-a961-0534e601987b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4340 bytes --]

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

[Bruce D'Arcus]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4185 bytes --]

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/fe3c108a-8702-42f7-9309-fe3386f40b7b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5043 bytes --]

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

[hgv]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5769 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6886 bytes --]