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

[Thomas S. Dye]

Rasmus <address@hidden> writes:

>  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). 

Given that 1., 2., and 4. are possible with "link hacks" doesn't this
leave just 3. in need of solution?  If the current link syntax would
take another function used to display the link, then wouldn't that solve
3.? 

Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com