From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas S. Dye)
To: Richard Lawrence <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: org-cite and org-citeproc
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:41:12 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> (Richard Lawrence's message of "Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:42:23 -0700")
Richard Lawrence <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Hi Tom and all,
> Thanks for answering my questions!
> email@example.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:
>> With natbib, it is possible to give a pre-note and a post-note to the
>> citation as a whole, but not to individual citations within it. In
>> order to support your syntax fully, I think BibLaTeX is needed.
> OK, good to know.
>>> (Also, do you think it is important to support plain BibTeX at all? It
>>> seems like we should not bother with this problem unless it's important
>>> for a lot of people. I personally would be fine with just targeting
>>> BibLaTeX, and it sounds like Eric would be too.)
>> Well, one benefit of Aaron's function was to make this choice
>> superfluous, both now and in the future. It binds the two citation
>> commands you've implemented to citation commands implemented in
>> CITATION_STYLE. As Aaron notes, it should be easy to modify this (to
>> bind additional commands) when advanced citation support comes along.
> I think I have to retract what I said earlier: I doubt this part of
> Aaron's code still works in my branch, because I think Aaron was
> assuming citation objects contain just one reference; in my branch, I've
> merged in the parser support Nicolas later implemented for multi-cite
> citations. So a CITATION_MODE needs to know how to turn a list of
> works, each with associated prefix and suffix data, into a complete
> citation command.
> This complicates things enough that probably custom citation modes
> should be defined as Lisp functions, rather than via format
> strings...what do you think?
> I'm still having a hard time seeing what an analogous customization
> would look like for non-LaTeX backends. The LaTeX exporter is unique in
> that Org produces output which must then be further processed by another
> tool, so having customizable control over how a citation `looks' to that
> tool makes sense. But in other backends, the Org exporter itself
> produces the final document; there's no intermediate representation
> besides Org's own, plus whatever arguments are passed to a citation
> processing tool like org-citeproc. So, if that's right, the analogous
> customization in a non-LaTeX backend would be something like a filter,
> one that pre-processes citation objects before they are run through the
> external tool, or that post-processes the strings that come back (or
> both). Does that make sense? Certainly, both of those things are
Yes, I think an export filter would work for LaTeX.
The general form for BibLaTeX is:
where \cites can also be \parencites, \textcites, etc.
For natbib it is:
where \cite can also be \citep, \citet, etc.
>> Typically, a bibliography style file defines several citation commands,
>> which might belong to one or more modes. ...
>> I think you might be able to merge CSL_FILE and CITATION_STYLE, since
>> they both point to a style file.
> OK, I see, that makes things clearer. Would it make sense to have two
> keywords, say LATEX_CITE_STYLE and CSL_FILE or similar, so that the
> style can vary independently when exporting to LaTeX vs. non-LaTeX? I'm
> thinking it will be tricky to come up with a single set of values for a
> CITATION_STYLE keyword that can be correctly mapped to both kinds of
> backend. Or maybe CITATION_STYLE should have "sub"-keywords, like
> #+CITATION_STYLE: biblatex:authoryear csl:chicago-author-date.csl
Won't the backends sort this out without the additional mapping?
All the best,
Thomas S. Dye
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-01 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-28 18:53 Richard Lawrence
2015-03-31 8:16 ` Eric S Fraga
2015-03-31 19:13 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-03-31 19:34 ` Nick Dokos
2015-03-31 20:29 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-03-31 21:57 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-01 0:41 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-04-01 15:42 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-01 19:41 ` Thomas S. Dye [this message]
2015-04-02 15:57 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-02 16:45 ` Thomas S. Dye
2015-03-31 21:12 ` Eric S Fraga
2015-04-01 7:49 ` Andreas Leha
2015-04-02 14:29 ` Eric S Fraga
2015-04-02 15:11 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-02 19:26 ` Andreas Leha
2015-03-31 22:03 ` Rasmus
2015-04-01 14:39 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-02 0:08 ` Rasmus
2015-04-02 15:26 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-02 15:51 ` Aaron Ecay
2015-04-02 17:38 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-06 18:51 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-06-16 19:36 ` Matt Price
2015-06-18 22:44 ` Richard Lawrence
2015-04-02 19:17 ` Rasmus
2015-04-03 2:56 ` Richard Lawrence
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).