From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Lawrence Subject: Re: org-cite and org-citeproc Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:13:17 -0700 Message-ID: <878uedgeuq.fsf@berkeley.edu> References: <87twx5hs2x.fsf@berkeley.edu> <871tk560p3.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34745) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1bp-0005Fp-8m for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1bj-0007Ge-Kq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:34500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1bj-0007Fs-EF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:51 -0400 Received: by pdbni2 with SMTP id ni2so29820771pdb.1 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:13:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <871tk560p3.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> 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: Eric S Fraga Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Eric and all, Eric S Fraga writes: > On Saturday, 28 Mar 2015 at 10:53, Richard Lawrence wrote: >> I thought I should send an update to let you know that org-citeproc [1], >> the command-line citation processing tool I've been working on, now >> supports multi-cites. I believe that means it is now capable of >> processing all citations in the basic citation syntax. It can output >> plain text, HTML, and ODT (and a Pandoc native format, mostly useful for >> debugging). > > This looks really good! Thanks. Thanks! > However, for some reason, libreoffice doesn't display the citations in > the ODT document you have included. I have had a look at the actual ODT > file and it looks fine. Can you suggest what may be wrong? Hmm, you're right. I don't have LibreOffice on the machine where I am working on org-citeproc, but I tested it on another machine (OS X, LibreOffice version 4.2.8.2 I think), and the citation text is indeed missing. As you say, the actual file looks fine to me, and it displays correctly on Google Drive (which is where I originally tested the output). So LibreOffice might be where the problem is. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem with org-citeproc, or the ODT exporter, but given that the file looks fine and another viewer handles it correctly, LibreOffice would be my first suspect. I don't really know anything about the ODT format, though. My code more-or-less blindly pastes Pandoc-generated XML into the document during Org ODT export. Can someone who knows more about the format take a look at the file and see if there is some subtle problem I'm not noticing? > A second question: what will be required to use the new cite syntax with > LaTeX/PDF which will remain my main target for export? I think this needs more discussion, actually. The citation syntax can basically be mapped directly to BibLaTeX syntax, so generating LaTeX that will be processed with BibLaTeX is a simple and straightforward modification to Org's LaTeX exporter, and compiling the exported document should continue to require no external programs except the LaTeX distribution itself. That is, `C-c C-e l whatever' should continue to be all that is needed from a user's perspective, plus or minus some LATEX_HEADER setup. However, there are a couple of other scenarios to think about: 1) Some people may still need to use plain BibTeX. Generating LaTeX that is intended to be processed with BibTeX, as opposed to BibLaTeX, is a little trickier, because (IIUC) BibTeX does not support multi-cite citations. Also, I don't know how easy it would be to capture the other features of citations (e.g., the in-text vs. parenthetical distinction) without relying on a package like natbib. If generating BibTeX-compatible LaTeX is needed, is it OK to rely on such a package? 2) Some people might find it useful *not* to generate LaTeX citation commands, and instead have a tool like org-citeproc process citations instead, with the exporter inserting the rendered output into the document. This could be useful if e.g. you are preparing to submit to a journal that provides a CSL file, but not a BibTeX or BibLaTeX style. If either of these scenarios represents an important use case, it will be more work to implement. I suggest that for now we just target BibLaTeX, but I'd like to hear from other people about whether there's reason to do more than that. Best, Richard