[org-cite] add convention for direct commands, process for adding mappings to export processor(s)?

[org-cite] add convention for direct commands, process for adding mappings to export processor(s)?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

The current list of styles and variants included in the oc export
processors was a first step, with a goal to provide a solid starting
point, and citations that are more-or-less portable across the
backends.

But that raises an obvious question: what next?

I'd like, for example, to suggest adding "noauthor/bare" -> "cite*" to
oc-biblatex.

I also think we should add a way for users to use a direct command for
natbib and biblatex.

As I've looked into some of what I'd call corner cases, consistency
breaks down a bit, so it may not be advisable to add explicit support
for certain options, since they won't work across different backends
anyway.

Perhaps some prefix for a style that signals to pass on directly for a
specific export processor; like [cite/blx+footcite ...].

In that case, the oc-biblatex processor would pass that command on as
is, but other processors would ignore it, and use the default instead.

The documentation would just need to emphasize use of such commands
would necessarily tie those citations to the specific export backend.

And if we were to add this, we'd still need to answer my first
question: when and how to add specific style/variant mappings to the
oc processors.

Thoughts?

Bruce

Re: [org-cite] add convention for direct commands, process for adding mappings to export processor(s)?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

Just bumping this. Nicolas, in particular, any thoughts?

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 2:37 PM Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The current list of styles and variants included in the oc export
> processors was a first step, with a goal to provide a solid starting
> point, and citations that are more-or-less portable across the
> backends.
>
> But that raises an obvious question: what next?
>
> I'd like, for example, to suggest adding "noauthor/bare" -> "cite*" to
> oc-biblatex.
>
> I also think we should add a way for users to use a direct command for
> natbib and biblatex.
>
> As I've looked into some of what I'd call corner cases, consistency
> breaks down a bit, so it may not be advisable to add explicit support
> for certain options, since they won't work across different backends
> anyway.
>
> Perhaps some prefix for a style that signals to pass on directly for a
> specific export processor; like [cite/blx+footcite ...].
>
> In that case, the oc-biblatex processor would pass that command on as
> is, but other processors would ignore it, and use the default instead.
>
> The documentation would just need to emphasize use of such commands
> would necessarily tie those citations to the specific export backend.
>
> And if we were to add this, we'd still need to answer my first
> question: when and how to add specific style/variant mappings to the
> oc processors.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bruce

Re: [org-cite] add convention for direct commands, process for adding mappings to export processor(s)?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

>> The current list of styles and variants included in the oc export
>> processors was a first step, with a goal to provide a solid starting
>> point, and citations that are more-or-less portable across the
>> backends.
>>
>> But that raises an obvious question: what next?

Are we at next already?

>> I'd like, for example, to suggest adding "noauthor/bare" -> "cite*" to
>> oc-biblatex.

Done.

>> I also think we should add a way for users to use a direct command for
>> natbib and biblatex.

[...]

>> Perhaps some prefix for a style that signals to pass on directly for a
>> specific export processor; like [cite/blx+footcite ...].

I'm not too keen on extending the citation syntax.

>> In that case, the oc-biblatex processor would pass that command on as
>> is, but other processors would ignore it, and use the default
>> instead.

This is the point of styles. We could allow custom ones.

>> And if we were to add this, we'd still need to answer my first
>> question: when and how to add specific style/variant mappings to the
>> oc processors.

It is possible to send a patch if it is something useful. Some
processors (probably only biblatex at this point, we probably cover
everything in natbib) may also introduce a customizable variable for
user-defined styles.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [org-cite] add convention for direct commands, process for adding mappings to export processor(s)?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 4:41 PM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

> >> And if we were to add this, we'd still need to answer my first
> >> question: when and how to add specific style/variant mappings to the
> >> oc processors.
>
> It is possible to send a patch if it is something useful. Some
> processors (probably only biblatex at this point, we probably cover
> everything in natbib) may also introduce a customizable variable for
> user-defined styles.

Ah yes; that's a better solution.

And I agree; it mostly makes sense for biblatex (though I saw someone
on reddit asking about natbib \bibentry, which is what reminded me
about this).

It's not needed for oc-csl, because of the tight integration of that
with citeproc-el.

Bruce