From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: Standardize #+BIBLIOGRAPHY line Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:39:41 +0530 Message-ID: <87ob9upoe2.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87k3kjyr37.fsf@gmail.com> <87hafn55l0.fsf@gmail.com> <87ip02wx96.fsf@gmail.com> <874nbm67rq.fsf@gmail.com> <874nbmwvsy.fsf@gmail.com> <87y58y4ryh.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43091) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1Iep-0002Z2-Q2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1Ien-0005Cs-FT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22c]:36894) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V1Ien-0005CQ-8T for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:17 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so7217137pbc.31 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y58y4ryh.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:58:14 +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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Let me state unequivocally that I am willing to co-operate . Nicolas Goaziou 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.