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

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

Hi Nicolas,

I'll take a close look at this and test it over the coming days, but
in the meantime, on two more general points:

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:39 PM Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

First, names:

> I called it `csl' instead of `citeproc'. It is a bit ambiguous, but it
> is shorter, and "org-cite-csl" prefix sounds less redudant than
> "org-cite-citeproc...".  But I know this is a weak argument, so if you think "citeproc"
> is still more appropriate, I can revisit this.

From my perspective, that's totally fine, and arguably better: csl
export processor for citeproc library.

The citeproc name is just a convention for the processors that's
developed over time I think mostly because people couldn't be bothered
to come up with better names. I actually wrote the very first one, in
XSLT, called citeproc-xsl.

I think CSL would be more widely known among users though.

And this processor doesn't actually do the formatting, so it makes sense.

Second, this:

> Also, I don't expect a different CSL-based citation processor any time soon, so it should be fine.

Well, I'll ask you the same question I asked Andras recently:

What if a developer has the idea to hook up one of the new, very fast,
csl libraries: either the haskell version associated with pandoc, or
the rust-based version associated with Zotero?

Possible reasons they might want to do that: performance and/or
compliance/features.

Could you make sure this module is coded in such a way that it should
be relatively straightforward to do that?

Bruce