Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:

> Nicolas, I think, a part of problem is that you are not an org-cite
> user. The packages require some *polishing*, but it have to be 
> *user-driven*.

Just to be clear: the development was _user-driven_ from the start.
I read years of discussions about citation, suggested a syntax, waited
for input, amended the syntax… Then I did the same for the whole
library, implementing proof of concepts, waiting for feedback, etc.

> Another point is more serious. Besides citations there are internal
> cross-references. Org supports them but only in a rudimentary form. 
> Actually cross-references are similar to citations in the sense that
> they can have style, prefixes and suffixes, and their appearance
> depends on target properties. Another feature is grouping. However 
> cross-references should not be handled by citation backends, they
> require different handlers. Unfortunately there is no way to define 
> custom "citation" type e.g. "[ref:...]" in addition to "[cite:...]".

There is too little information here for me to understand what
cross-references (or grouping) are, or why they would require different
handlers. In any case, if such thing are deemed necessary in Org Cite,
one can always start a new thread.

The goal of Org Cite is not to do everything, however. Its raison d'être
is to provide building blocks around citations that external packages
can use and extend. Therefore cross-references might belong to an
extension instead.

> To assign additional properties, info "(org) Links in HTML export"
> https://orgmode.org/manual/Links-in-HTML-export.html recommends usage
> of "#+ATTR_HTML", but such technique has several issues:

This is a different issue. Citations are not link, and have a fixed set
of properties.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou