On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> 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