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

[Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>]

On 23/03/2022 00:20, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Max Nikulin wrote:
>>
>> John Kitchin, this thread, Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29 -0400.
>> https://list.orgmode.org/m2sfrc149c.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu:
>>
>>> I don't know the equivalent of \citenum in CSL.
> 
> Right; so John or someone else should send a message to the list
> requesting it specifically?

 From my point of view he has already requested support of \citenum by 
that message. I am taking into account that he is the developer org-ref 
and he is happy with this package. John made a lot to adopt org-cite 
syntax to ensure feature parity. Bruce, you should know it better than 
me since you participated in discussions while I am merely and observer. 
John does not really need \citenum namely in org-cite since his tool is 
org-ref, but his words may affect perception of org-cite.

I have an impression that the ball is on the side of the org-cite, and 
next steps may be to ask for real documents (e.g. open access papers) 
that are prepared with such format and to discuss most suitable style 
for CSL.

> One possible idea to consider is to allow two systems in each of
> LaTeX-oriented processors: what we might call a default "org-cite"
> one, and an optional "literal" one. So if you only use oc-natbib, and
> you want the natbib commands directly, you might change a variable to
> get that.

Maybe I will share my idea in response to the message from Nicolas
https://list.orgmode.org/871qytlf49.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr
Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:52:22 +0100, this thread.

Since John explicitly confirmed that org-ref for cross-references may be 
combined with org-cite for citations, it may be great that Org has 2 
independent implementations for citations. When a user meets some corner 
case their has an opportunity to try another package.