Re: [Tip] Export a bibliography to HTML with bibLaTeX and make4ht

["Juan Manuel Macías" <maciaschain@posteo.net>]

Hi Gustavo,

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Gustavo Barros <gusbrs.2016@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 08:37, Gustavo Barros <gusbrs.2016@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It should handle two limitations of your procedure, which
>> are: getting the bibliography with the entries actually cited in the
>> document and citation callouts.  The first one is easy to handle in
>> your
>> current approach by means of any of the multiple alternatives to
>> generate a bib file with only the cited entries.  The second one, much
>> harder, as far as I can see.
>
> Thinking this through: there is actually a third challenge to the
> approach, which is ensuring the relation of the citation callouts and 
> the bibliography is correct.  For example, if using a numeric or alpha
> style, how to be sure the labels are the same in the citation and the 
> bibliography.  Even in other styles, such as author-year, if
> disambiguation rules come into play (e.g. (Smith 1987a, Smith 1987b)), 
> how to be sure the same rules are being applied by pandoc/CSL (on the
> citations) and biblatex (in the bibliography).  As far as I can tell, 
> this will hang on sorting, something which biblatex is known to be
> more capable than other tools, so that I would expect differences (at
> least potentially).  Styles such as verbose or author-title would
> probably be safe, I guess.  Have you given some thought about this?
> If so, how are you handling the case?
>

I agree with what you comment here and in your previous message. In
fact, I'm afraid this (humble) approach of mine is focused only on
creating a mere list of references in HTML from a bib file, keeping the
same bibliography styles that I have customized in bibLaTeX, but not on
everything related to citations throughout the text and on the
consistency between citations and bibliographies. I would say that my
method is not a good starting point to implement a solution. The
essential problem, of course, is that our customization is LaTeXcentric:
it resides in LaTeX/bibLaTeX and not in Org.

In my case, anyway, I had been using the TeX ecosystem almost
exclusively for my work in typesetting and editorial design (I do not
use DTP software, which is not intended to create books but magazines
and newspapers), and Org Mode for writing and notes. But in recent years
I have come to realize that a workflow based also on Org and Org-Publish
is tremendously productive for me to manage the typesetting of a book,
especially a complex book. Let's say now I also use Org as a high-level
interface for LaTeX. I'm currently working on the /Hispanic Dictionary
of Classical Tradition/ (/Diccionario Hispánico de la Tradición
Clásica/), a volume of multiple authorship and about 1200 pages. The
method I raised in this thread has to do with this scenario, where each
dictionary entry is accompanied by a bibliography. As the dictionary
will have an online secondary version, I wanted to keep the same
bibliography style that I had defined for bibLaTeX. I have not had the
problem of the citations here, since the entries do not contain
citations (bibliographies only). Otherwise, I think an emergency
solution could be to export from Org to *.tex, and then generate the
HTML from there using make4ht and another preamble /ad hoc/, better than
using a mixed csl/bibLaTeX method which, as you say, can result in many
inconsistencies.

Long ago I tended to be more in favor of the idea that a single
source-text should produce multiple identical or interchangeable
formats. I really still believe it with enthusiasm and I have not
completely lost faith in such a utopia ;-) But nuances are necessary and
it must be accepted that each format has its idiosyncrasies and
limitations. For example, TeX and what TeX produces is at a level (let's
say) higher than what can be achieved through HTML/CSS, odt, epub... It
is not only a question of typographic refinement or fancy appearance
(typical of TeX), but also (in my opinion) of the book typography itself as a
form of expression. The other formats will often lag behind TeX, and
this must be taken into account when exporting, pros and cons, etc. On
the other hand, bibLaTeX is powerful and highly customizable, but sadly
depends on LaTeX...

Regards,

Juan Manuel 


> Best,
> Gustavo.
>