From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: org-cite and org-citeproc Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:34:54 -0400 Message-ID: <87iodh55b5.fsf@alphaville.usersys.redhat.com> References: <87twx5hs2x.fsf@berkeley.edu> <871tk560p3.fsf@delle7240.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <878uedgeuq.fsf@berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38457) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1wS-0004pf-1A for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:35:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1wO-0000hU-0g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:35:15 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45712) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1wN-0000hF-Qv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:35:11 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yd1wK-000728-UJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:35:08 +0200 Received: from nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com ([66.187.233.206]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:35:08 +0200 Received: from ndokos by nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:35:08 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Richard Lawrence writes: > However, there are a couple of other scenarios to think about: > > 1) Some people may still need to use plain BibTeX. Generating LaTeX > that is intended to be processed with BibTeX, as opposed to BibLaTeX, is > a little trickier, because (IIUC) BibTeX does not support multi-cite > citations. I know next to nothing about citations in general, so please bear with me: if multi-cite support means being able to condense citations (e.g. [1-3, 5, 9]), then bibtex can do at least some of that (e.g. http://texblog.org/2007/05/28/mulitple-reference-citation/). > Also, I don't know how easy it would be to capture the other > features of citations (e.g., the in-text vs. parenthetical distinction) > without relying on a package like natbib. If generating > BibTeX-compatible LaTeX is needed, is it OK to rely on such a package? > IMO yes. Nick