Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:23 AM John Kitchin <jkitchin@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>> A package could be created, say `org-cite-literal-biblatex' which is just a copy
>> of `oc-biblatex.el' with a different default `org-cite-biblatex-styles' and
>> `org-cite-biblatex-style-shortcuts' (or just sets those variables in
>> `org-cite-biblatex'). As far as I can tell this would provide exactly the
>> functionality you say org-cite can’t provide but org-ref does.
>
>
> I wrote this package you suggest in org-ref-cite. In discussions during that development, it was clear the preference was on the more abstracted, and uniform syntax across backends cite commands in org-cite, and not this kind of variant. Of course one can do this. It is not that org-cite can't provide it, it is that it doesn't at this time.

Just for some broader context on this particular issue.

The advantage of the org-cite style/variant design reflected in the
included export processors (natbib, biblatex, csl) is that the same
styles will mostly generate the same final output.

But that portability will only work with those styles and variants.

With the new org-cite-biblatex-styles defcustom, however, one can
augment or completely replace all those. But if you care about that
portability, you'd want to be aware of this, and think about it.

So per Timothy's point, you actually don't even need a new processor
for biblatex if you want to include all the extensive list of biblatex
commands.

Natbib AFAIK is already fully covered.

There's another POV on this though:

If one doesn't like to see the org-cite styles, because of familiarity
with LaTeX commands etc., I would argue that can be addressed in the
style part of an insert processor and/or in an activate processor.
E.g. I would argue this is a UI issue; not fundamentally about the
styles names.

Bruce