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

[Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>]

On 28/03/2022 02:40, John Kitchin wrote:
> Max Nikulin writes:
>> On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote:
>
> Rather than rehash a lot of experiences, I really encourage you to try
> writing a processor that can support this. Or even, try modifying
> org-ref-cite to support it. Not as some thought experiment about what
> should be possible, but an actual experiment that is worked out.

I have some ideas for links, other inline objects and export attributes 
that I should try before.

>> In particular I am worrying concerning https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref
>> README (and the same phrase from the earlier message):
>>
>>> org-cite does not meet my citation and technical document publishing needs,
>>> and it was not possible to integrate it into org-ref without compromising
>>> those.
> 
> I have taken this out of the readme. I still agree with the sentiment,
> but my needs are not the same as others (for example, I include in my
> needs include ease of support and development, which is not a user
> need), and it is possible to meet some basic needs fully.

John, in another message (Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:00:40 -0400) 
https://list.orgmode.org/m24k3jnq0k.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu you clearly 
stated a technical limitation that is a real reason why org-cite is not 
an option for you and for some other users: performance has not been 
optimized for large BibTeX databases. It is deserved to be mentioned. 
You even have managed to convince me that, besides adding missing style 
names, some existing ones should be adjusted. noauthor/bare for citeyear 
example makes for me much more sense than general words that org-cite is 
too CSL-oriented. So the opinion that the set of styles has not really 
settled yet may be precious for users choosing between org-cite and org-ref.

 From my point of view such arguments are more clear than your earlier 
message (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29 -0400) 
https://list.orgmode.org/m2sfrc149c.fsf@andrew.cmu.edu I had no 
intention to force to remove that phrase before the issues are fixed. I 
was trying to ask you about more details behind your opinion (and now we 
have them).