From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Citations, continued Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:05:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87lhk6xese.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87vbjmn6wy.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87sieokx8e.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d04780.cb58460a.5243.2603@mx.google.com> <87h9v3li8t.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d078ff.b044440a.06ec.3cf6@mx.google.com> <87d25rkmag.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54d1bc7b.c57d440a.3c5d.2dca@mx.google.com> <87vbjh284z.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87mw4tk4m7.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87oap7z664.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87fvaibr3k.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87y4o9s5qc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d25kpxap.fsf@pank.eu> <87k2zsso3w.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87vbjcoewx.fsf@gmx.us> <87bnl4shqg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87h9uwwmgt.fsf@gmx.us> <87zj8oqqtz.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87386eywus.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87r3tydswi.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45576) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YL7g5-0003V4-0c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:04:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YL7fz-0000Av-QL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:04:20 -0500 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:55644) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YL7fz-00009p-EP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:04:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r3tydswi.fsf@gmx.us> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:20:45 +0100") 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: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Rasmus writes: > So, the (opinionated) useful defaults in biblatex are: > cite(s), parencite(s), footcite(s), texcite(s), fullcite, > footfullcite, nocite Isn't footcite/footfullcite a choice made at the document's level instead of per citation? If that's the case, it could go in a keyword, e.g., #+LATEX_CITATION: :style footcite > Citation types for extracting parts: > citeauthor, citetitle, citeyear, citedate, citeurl, Can't this be attached to the key, as a filter? > From natbib: > citet (== textcite), citep (== parencite). > > Keys I don't care about, since they are quite biblatex specific: > smartcite, autocide, parentcite*, uppercase variants. *volcites(s) (any objections?) > > In natbib: > citealt, citalp, starred variants > > So that's 17 support keys and two aliases. I guess this would deter most > authors from needing custom styles. Then what about [cite:command: common pre; pre1 @key1 post1; ... ; common post] where command is anything matching is constituted of alphanumeric characters only (this is just a guess, a proper regexp is yet to be determined). LaTeX back-end will see "command" and less advanced back-ends "cite", so that the same document can be exported through multiple back-ends. Also [cite: common pre; pre1 @key1 post1; ... ; common post] would be equivalent to [cite:default_command: common pre; pre1 @key1 post1; ... ; common post] where "default_command" would be set in a defcustom within "ox-latex.el". However, this syntax doesn't handle in-text citation for other back-ends than LaTeX. Hence the [@key post] proposal, or even @key [post], which I find more elegant than [citet: ...] / [citep: ...] > The default bibtex.el style generates keys like "%A%y:%t", so I think ":" > is no good, appealing as it is. Then "/" (filter) or "|" (pipe). Regards,