On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:31 AM Denis Maier <denisma...@mailbox.org> wrote:
> In that case, I'd think that note/bare => footcitecite isn't a > particular good fit. Footcitetext puts the citation in a footnote, just > that it doesn't print a footnote mark in a running text. And, just as a general rule, not all sub-styles are relevant for all styles. > > One problem is there is no "\cite", or "\parencite". I though they would > > make a good fit for the default style, "\cite" being the "bare" variant > > of "\parencite", and "\autocite" could be moved to a "auto" style. I'm > > not sure where to put \cite, then. > > Why not just add a cite/parens style? Probably makes sense. > \cite could be [cite/bare: ...] > > Regarding \autocite being the default: > I think one strong argument in favor of this is that people may want to > switch between different citation export processors. So if you typeset > your article with latex you may want to use biblatex. But if the journal > accepts submissions only as docx files you'll have to switch to a > CSL-based citeproc. Yes, this is the use case I was thinking of when suggesting a lot of this. In fact, it's an approach I'm likely to use myself! > Here, the default is to wrap the citation either in > a footnote or in parentheses, depending on the style. > So, to ensure portability of documents across export systems [cite: > @doe] should give similar results with different systems, and I think > \autocite would be the best choice. (By the way, it's also the way > pandoc implements this.) Bruce
