Re: [wip-cite-new] Initial implementation of `biblatex' citation processor

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

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:29 AM Denis Maier <denismaier@mailbox.org> wrote:
>
> Am 20.05.2021 um 16:11 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
...
> > 1. I wasn't sure Nicolas was aware of this config option, nor how one
> > would configure it currently (but it seems necessary in general)
>
> No, it's only necessary to configure this if you don't want the defaults.
>
> In authoryear styles you have autocite=inline by default
> In authortitle styles you have autocite=inline by default
> In verbose styles you have autocite=footnote by default
>
> So, if you use an authoryear/authortitle style, but want
> autocite=footnote you'll have to declare this as a package option.

Oh good!

> > 2. If you set default to autocite=inline, which is to say the
> > non-bare/plain style, the issue you note goes away?
> >
>
> Not sure. Autocite* => parencite*, but there's still no cite/bare* then.

Just to clarify:

There's no autocite command variant that produces the bare output?

But there are other more output-specific commands that do?

From your followup to this:

> Another thought here:
> Yes, it could be [cite/parens/bare:...] but also [cite/note/bare:...].

Why is that necessary?

If I interpreted the above correctly, is not the limitation in
biblatex autocite?

E.g. Nicolas could map "cite/bare"  to whatever paren or note biblatex
variant, depending on the citation style?

> @Bruce: We don't have bare citation in CSL currently, right? Perhaps we
>  should add this to add some portability...

No, just as we don't have (yet) in-text, but processors have implemented it.

That's why I recommend on that table that citeproc-org/el supports it;
it's easy enough to add.

Bruce