Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Rasmus]

Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Rasmus,
>
> 2015ko martxoak 1an, Rasmus-ek idatzi zuen:
>> 
>>> At this point, we probably need to implement a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword
>>> (files) and BIBLIOGRAPHY_BACKEND (bibtex, zotero, jabref...) and provide
>>> basic tools to handle citations in an Org document.
>> 
>> Probably a CITATION_STYLE as well, e.g. "numeric", "author-year", etc.
>> 
>> I'll try to look at biblatex support for ox-latex, which should be the
>> easiest target, but ATM I'm a bit busy.  
>
> If you have time, I’d appreciate your opinion on whether the approach
> I’ve started of doing latex and non-latex together in ox-cite is a good
> approach, or whether instead you’d rather handle latex within ox-latex.

Good that I didn't start hacking on ox-latex in the plain, but went for
org-element instead :)

I will check them out.  I think ox-cite will be a beast.  Still, since
citation is a single object it should probably be in backends.
E.g. export of inlinetasks are handled in backends.

Still, general functionality and backend support and/or API should
probably be in a separate library.

WDYT?

> Should we also support “plain” bibtex and natbib?

I think John said that journals often require natbib.  At this point I'm
using biblatex only.

For ox-latex, it might make sense to have a :citation-backend which is
maps supported citations types to packages.  Until somebody complains, we
could support biblatex only.

>> For bibtex-outside-of-latex, reftex-cite.el is decent, but not great¹.
>> Still, it may be easier to fix it up that to write our own bibtex
>> parser.
>
> It would also be possible to just use an external program like
> citeproc-java.  WDYT?

This is the preferred method by far!  The closer we can get to the latex
citation where we just insert "naïve" commands the better IMO.

—Rasmus

-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they are not