From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Lundin Subject: Re: org-ref in action Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:39:22 -0500 Message-ID: <8761jnu44l.fsf@fastmail.fm> References: <87wqc4wxbe.fsf@gmail.com> <87fvisbhnb.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87vbrnu5k5.fsf@fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53883) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Apx-0001LN-Ko for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:39:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0App-0005da-WE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:39:41 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:47968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0App-0005dV-PR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:39:33 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D192721F3D for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:39:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Grant Rettke's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:11:32 -0500") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Grant Rettke Cc: Fabrice Popineau , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" , Eric Schulte , John Kitchin Grant Rettke writes: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Matt Lundin wrote: >> I think the key in any possible feature merge is to remember citation >> management is idiosyncratic. > > Off topic: > > How do people choose today? > > Why choose bibtex over biblatex? Thanks to inertia, bibtex still has a number of users in the sciences, since it was originally designed for scientific citations. In the humanities, however, bibtex is a non-starter, since biblatex offers much more flexibility. The good news is that bibtex and biblatex use the same database format, so it's easy to transition from bibtex to biblatex. However, there are other options, such as CSL.[1] > Where do people discuss such questions like this in real life? I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you clarify? I simply meant that everyone will have a different workflow/system for storing and managing citations. E.g., some will prefer to store bibliographical data in a zotero database, others in a single bib file, others in multiple bib files, others as properties in org headlines, etc. I think one can make a conception distinction here between citation management (i.e., how one stores bibliographical data) and citation processing (i.e., the software one uses to export that data to some output format). There are many, many formats (mods, bib, etc.) and tools (biber, bibtex, csl/citeproc, etc.) for formatting bibliographical data. In an ideal world, one should be able to 1) process bibliographical data from multiple formats; 2) choose from hundreds of citation styles; and 3) format citations for multiple backends. I am not suggesting that org-mode should directly support all these things, but its default methods of handling citations should not get in the way of using external tools that provide such flexibility. For instance, pandoc (an immensely impressive piece of software!) accepts bibliographical data from numerous sources and processes it for multiple outputs (html, plain text, docx, rtf, etc.). By contrast, ox-bibtex.el runs citations through bibtex2html, which is pretty much limited to the "old-fashioned" bibtex formats. Ironically, ox-bibtex.el invokes pandoc to convert from html to plain text, but only after it has already used bibtex2html to process the data. Best, Matt Footnotes: [1] Citation Style Language - http://citationstyles.org/