Re: Standardize #+BIBLIOGRAPHY line

[Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>]

Let me state unequivocally that I am willing to co-operate .

Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm just pointing out two things:
>
>   - ox-bibtex will have to be implemented differently (e.g., no more
>     defadvices). 

Citation are "obivously" objects, whatever be their underlying syntax.
I am not happy with the defadvices and a recent change to introduce cite
links.  I feel like puking when I look at "#+BIBLIOGRAPHY" line.

So, let's start with standardizing "#+BIBLIOGRAPHY" line.  Having a bib
file or a bib database would be a good start.

> So, it's not just about moving ox-bibtex into another directory.

My mails don't make references to "moving ox-bibtex in to another
directory" at all.  We are talking about standardizing #+BIBLIOGRAPHY
line, that is all.  I have no other agenda.


>   - before discussing (again) citations syntax, we must ensure that this
>     is a realistic goal. IOW we need a proof of concept for, at least,
>     every major back-end (including ASCII).

Ascii should be the easier with JabRef atleast.  Ofcourse, interested
people should take up issues with JabRef team and sort out issues or
clarify what their layout format mean.

My intention is to merely show via a prorotype that JabRef seems like a
viable citation processor.

If you (or someone else) is going to implement Citation processor in
elisp itself, it's going to be a bigger effort.  Nothing wrong with it.

    1. It is wrong to assume ".bib" files as the "only" input database.
       (Zotero is gaining traction and is apparently well-funded.  But
       the tool itself is not mature.)

    2. Org can NEVER be a full-blown document preparation system.  It is
       going to be good enough for pre-prints or for one of sharing of
       documents.  Nothing more.

(2) implies that we can as well settle for a "simpler" cite syntax. 

As I see it, there will be ox-jabref.el, ox-bibtex.el and ox-zotero.el.
The responsibility from the ox.el side of things is to merely bless a
specific arrangement.  

The citation processors are not good enough to get in to the core Emacs,
but they can definitely be included in GNU ELPA.

I insist on Emacs and GNU ELPA not because I earn any brownie points or
feeds my pride but because it will ensure the longevity of work and to
some extent bitrot-proof-ness.