Re: Standardize #+BIBLIOGRAPHY line

[Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Getting Citation right to cater to general needs is going to be complex.
> This is mainly because 
>
>     1. Org's object syntax is very rudimentary and not "extensible" 
>     2. "real-world" citations may need some annotations page number etc.
>
> I think it is good to *atleast make a move* in standardizing the cite
> elements.  My gut feeling is that cite objects - for now - should be
> coded as \cite { } latex objects.  This specifically means that link
> syntax for cite should NOT BE ENCOURAGED (or STRONGLY DISCOURAGED).

I understand. You can still use ox-bibtex.el for now, and just ignore
all the "[[cite:...]]" part.

> As an aside, I am inclined to think of cite objects as "special class"
> of "footnote" elements.

I tend to agree. There was a discussion on the ML about a possible
syntax. I think it is a bit early to set it in stone anyway. As you
said, the point here is to make a move towards standardization, even if
it means using \cite{...} and `defadvice' for now.

> Does the author have copyright assignments for contributing to Emacs?
>
>         Taru Karttunen <taruti@taruti.net>
>
> As a personal policy, I don't want to touch a file which wouldn't end up
> in Emacs proper.  
>
> Any changes that I make to Emacs - that includes Org-mode - is
> *guaranteed* to end up in Emacs proper.  It's going to happen in it's
> own time.

Nobody can guarantee that code relative to bibliographies will become
mainstream. What if normalization fails, for one reason or another?

Anyway, I don't think assignment is a problem. If we decide to handle
bibliographies in Org core, ox-bibtex will have to be rewritten anyway
(and will become ox-bibliography or something like that). Though, it
would obviously be best if original "org-bibtex.el" author (Cc'ed) had
already signed FSF papers.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou