Hi Rasmus, hi the list,

Reading this thread I've understood that the question of html export of
biblatex citations is still an open problem for org-mode developers, right
?

Thanks to the online manual and the help of the list, I have succeeded to
write a template of koma-article class which is correctly exported both in
latex and in html. But I meet the problem of exporting  into html footnotes
and references.

At the moment, what is the best i.e. the more convenient solution?

My best wishes for this new year,

Jo.


2013/5/21 Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>

> Hi,
>
> Now that 8.0 has shipped let's talk bibliography support.  This
> follows directly upon the discussion around March[1].
>
> The essence of the thread was that some people agreed that it would be
> nice to have support for citation commands build into Org (I'll
> summarize in the next post).  But let me first restate my own take on
> the issue.  IMO a nice format would be:
>
> (*)   [KEYWORD PROPERTIES]
>
> I think we should allow for a more general approach than one just for
> citation and this is a good thing (IMO).
>
> The in-buffer display of (*) could be governed by
> org-buffer-format-KEYWORD (similar to
> gnus-user-format-function-LETTER) or just identity if no function is
> defined.  Export could be handled by org-BACKEND-KEYWORD or
> org-export-KEYWORD.  With officially recognized KEYWORDs something
> like citation could be a 'first-class citizen'.  PROPERTIES could be a
> string like:
>
>   optional-keyless-entry :prop1 one :prop2 two ...
>
> Perhaps, treatment of keyword, could even be handled by an
> in-buffer Org Babel function in the spirit of e.g. reproducible
> research (see below).
>
> This would be different from Org links in that (*) is more like a
> functions that allows for (i) pretty and informative display in
> buffer/export and (ii) easy user extension.
>
> I think there are many compelling use-cases for such a framework.
>
> 1. Citation: Take the keyword citetext which should be an 'official'
>    KEYWORD.  So for instance we could have
>
>      [citetext BIBTEX-KEY :prenote note, w/comma :postnote blah].
>
>    In buffers, via org-in-buffer-format-citetext, it would be
>    displayed as
>
>      BIBTEX-KEY (note, w/comma, YEAR, blah)
>
>    or something similar (depending to what extend bibtex.el would be
>    leveraged; e.g. BIBTEX-KEY might show the author/editor key and
>    YEAR would also depend on parsing a bibtex file) (obviouesly,
>    there's some reference to a bibtex file somewhere).  In LaTeX it
>    would be exported as
>
>      \citetext[note,w/comma][blah]{BIBTEX-KEY}
>
>    In html it might utilize some tool that understand bibtex (there's
>    a link to such a tool in the next post).  In ASCII it could almost
>    use what would be displayed in the buffer.
>
> 2. MY-FUN: MY-FUN is some function that does something with some
>    properties, perhaps just a string (simple cases: [sc text] is used
>    for small caps, or mayhaps [my-treat-dna-string DNA-STRING]).  I
>    might use it in a single file that I want to send to people or I
>    might just use it in my notes.  Currently it's implemented via
>    org-emphasis-alist or as a link.  Changing emphases is a hacks, and
>    they are hard to export with the now more robust Org syntax and
>    further permit little control over how they are displayed
>    in-buffer.  Links are more flexible but lacks display control and
>    becomes somewhat painful with many arguments[2].  Also, MY-FUN
>    doesn't take a 'description'.  With (*) I could simply write
>
>      [MY-FUN PROPERTIES].
>
>    Perhaps, I could even define org-BACKEND-MY-FUN in a babel block
>    if it's only relevant to the current file.
>
> There's been some work and some discussion on this already, most
> notably Aaron already supplied some patches towards this end[3],
> but using a slightly different syntax more like the link syntax;
> e.g. textcite above would look like
>
>   [[textcite:bibtex-key&&pre%3Dfoo&&post%3Dbar][whatever]]
>
> where whatever is ignored.  The state of the discussion is to some
> extend summarized in the next post.
>
> It would love to hear whether other people find something like this to
> be a good idea?  Would anyone find a use such a framework?  Would (*)
> conflict with anyone's current usage of Org?  Is (*) too ambitious and
> in terms of getting citation support?  Is this is taking a musket to
> kill a butterfly?  What are the the flaws in the above.
>
> I'm not a good (lisp) programmer, but I think I have a month off this
> summer where I could work on something like the above.
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Rasmus
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] http://mid.gmane.org/20130303070635.GA12112%40panahar
> [2] my citation links often look like postnote;prenote without
> showing the BIBTEX-KEY or citation format.
> [2] here http://mid.gmane.org/87lia0s7wi.fsf%40bzg.ath.cx
> and here http://mid.gmane.org/87wqthk7vj.fsf%40gmail.com.
>
>
> --
> When in doubt, do it!
>
>
>