Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?

[Rasmus Pank Roulund]

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.emacs.orgmode as well.

Achim Gratz <address@hidden> writes:

>> Do you mean using something like this
>>
>>   [[file:my.bib&key=key;prenote=note1;postnote=note2][key]]
>>
>> for the file: protocol
>
> This is a prime example of how _not_ to do this, IMHO.  The file
> protocol is an established protocol that you shouldn't bolt any extra
> parameters on.  

I very much agree.  The current "hacks" using links are annoying and
ugly, and if we were to do citations properly in Org—and I think we
should—it should NOT be using links (as Nicolas also pointed out).
It's a hack and shouldn't be made official.

In my book it would seem 'natural' to strive towards the following:

  1. It should be Bibtex-based.  I.e. Bibtex should be the 'database'
     or storage for citation information.  It may be stored in
     Org-Bibtex-whatever, but Bibtex should be the natural base.
  2. Citation selection should be possible via Reftex.
  3. It should look nice in the buffer.  For instance, with the
     current link hacks I am shown the pre or post notes in place of
     the citation.  Ideally, it should be able to specify a
     reftex-cite-format string on how to display stuff in the buffer.
     Notes should be viewable in an non-disturbing way.
     Ideally, I would want to see something like:
       (POSTFIX, Jensen, 1906, SUFFIX)
     or
       Jensen (POSTFIX, 1906, SUFFIX)
     (If my memory serves me correctly this is how BibLatex places
     notes).
 (4. If we are to adopt LaTeX terminology we should adopt the
     terminology of BibLatex as opposed to Natbib). 

–Rasmus

-- 
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer