emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [ANN] Bibliography support ODT + JabRef


From: Rasmus
Subject: Re: [O] [ANN] Bibliography support ODT + JabRef
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:39:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Jambunathan K <address@hidden> writes:

> feng shu <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 1. When I add (setq org-odt-data-dir "~/project/org-mode/etc/") to my .
>> emacs file, it works properly, Thanks!
>>
>> 2. Two question:
>> 1. How can I get uppercite: test^[1] instead of test[1]?
>> 2. How can I get compressed cite,like: test^[3, 5, 7-10, 16]
>
> Thanks for the requests.  
>
> Numbering is done by ox-jabref.el and not by JabRef application, so
> these requests can indeed be met with 5-15 minute of effort.  But I
> hesitate to 
>
> The main problem is there are just too many styles a Bibliographic
> Reference can be typeset - right from what some standard says, to what
> my university wants to what I prefer myself.  
>
> This is where some sort of common agreement - even just among the
> members of the community - will help.  I will keep listening to the
> conversation and hopefully an opinion will emerge during the course of
> time.

Aren't these "just" a question of the style file used from Jabref (but
currently written by Jambunathan)?  More to the point, can someone
with reasonable effort write a new style?  If that's the case a less
styles can shipped and more styles can be user-submission
(e.g. org-cite-styles in elpa?).

IMO authordate, numeric (using names from table below) should be
included.  I agree with Feng that comp variations are nice.
Alphabetic, verbose and authortitle are nice to have, but I wouldn't
use them.

Also, what are the limitations of the complexity that can be handled
by this scheme?  Can one have a distinction between style and type of
citation, e.g. combine a inline-citation style with a bibliography
citation style?

Is something like footcite a property of the citation or of the style?

Just for the reference, these are the default in-text citation styles
of biblatex (section 3.3.1).  So in Biblatex-terms Feng is asking for
numeric-comp with \supercite{·}.

NAME                 STYLE
========================================================================
numeric              [8, 3, 1, 7, 2]
numeric-comp         [1–3, 7, 8]
numeric-verb         [2]; [5]; [6]
alphabetic           [Doe92; Doe95; Jon98]
alphabetic-verb      [Doe92]; [Doe95]; [Jon98]
authoryear           Doe 1995b; Doe 1992; Jones 1998; Doe 1995a
authoryear-comp      Doe 1992, 1995a,b; Jones 1998
alphabetic-verb      Doe 1992, 1995a,b; Jones 1998
authoryear-ibid      replaces repeated citations by the abbreviation 
                     ibidem
authortitle          Doe, First title; Doe, Second title
authortitle-comp     Doe,First title, Second title
authortitle-ibid     replaces repeated citations by the abbreviation
                     ibidem
authortitle-icomp    A style combining the features
authortitle-terse    authortitle but only prints the title 
                     if the bibliography contains more than one work
authortitle-tcomp    authortitle-comp and authortitle-terse. 
authortitle-ticomp   authortitle-tcomp style with an ibidem feature.
verbose              full citation as bibliography entry then short 
                     citation in footnote
verbose-ibid         replaces repeated citations by the abbreviation
                     ibidem
verbose-note         short citation is a pointer to the footnote with 
                     the full citation
verbose-inote        verbose-note with ibidem
verbose-trad1:       verbose butt uses the scholarly abbreviations
                     ibidem, idem, op. cit., and loc. cit. 
verbose-trad2        ibidem and idem in repeated citations. 
verbose-trad3        useses op. cit. in a slightly different way.
draft                entry keys in citations
========================================================================


-- 
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]