On 06/05/2021 00:16, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM Maxim Nikulin wrote:
On 04/05/2021 23:59, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
Is the default \cite{key} command (without any other package) used? I'm
not sure we should provide it since we are working towards more complete
solutions.
In some fields simple "[3,7]" citations are traditional.
How do you achieve such output, with which formats, packages, commands?
It is default behavior. Minimal example:
--- 8< ---
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
New threads related to citations in Org~\cite{ml_natbib,ml_cite_org3}.
\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{ml_cite_org3} Nicolas Goaziou. Notes about citations in Org
(part 3).
\bibitem{ml_cite_status} Bruce D'Arcus. wip-cite status question and
feedback.
\bibitem{ml_natbib} Nicolas Goaziou. [wip-cite-new] New natbib processor.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
--- 8< ---
New threads related to citations in Org [3, 1].
References
[1] Nicolas Goaziou. Notes about citations in Org (part 3).
[2] Bruce D’Arcus. wip-cite status question and feedback.
[3] Nicolas Goaziou. [wip-cite-new] New natbib processor.
--- 8< ---
Additional packages are required to sort citations or to replace
sequence with range.
For example, do you get that with the default \cite command in latex,
assuming the right bst file?
Do you think something is wrong with such citations? Papers may be
published without using of BibTeX at all. "Right" bst file depends on
particular journal. Even between styles, that generate simple
\bibitem{key} causing numerical citations, difference may be rather
significant in respect to what parts of entry are formatted, in which
order how they are emphasized, what is omitted completely and what is
shortened.
