Re: [O] Some projects

[Matt Price]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Rasmus <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi,

First, thanks for writing this up, Nicolas.  Org has been a bit slow
lately, at least for my part.

 

ditto.  and thanks to eveyrone in the thread for their input.

> ** Citations
>
> Development apparently stopped for some reason. We have a citation
> syntax for Org in wip-cite and some work done in wip-cite-awe and
> probably elsewhere.
>
> I think we could at least provide features defined in Org Ref using the
> new syntax (minus hydra/helm related functions).
>
> We don't need a silver bullet. Just something with a non-empty user
> base, and extensible. In any case, the work done so far shouldn't be
> wasted.

This is something I care deeply about, and I would like to work on it.
I’m a bit short on time these days, but still it’s the most important
missing feature IMO.

We sort of got stuck on syntax discussions the last time (besides
[cite]/[(cite)]), as well as tool choices (citeproc-java vs. some
org-specific Haskell implementation).

I would suggest we start with LaTeX, although it contains some danger of
making choices that are hard to make work with citeproc.  I’m not sure how
far Aaron got on this work.

I also regard this as the most important missing feature from Org. From my perspective, latex-centred approaches are I guess fine but don't immediately solve any issues for me. My use cases are (a) publication to the web, either of papers or, especially,  of teaching resources; and (b) circulation of scholarly work in  .docx or (in rare best-case scenarios) markdown.  I would really be grateful if work on citations left the door open for these formats, which are going to be with us for a long time.

Again, thanks to all you guys for your work on this.

m