Denis Maier <denisma...@mailbox.org> writes: > 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. > (This is useful in cases where the regular footnote mechanism in LaTeX > doesn't work, e.g. in headings or tables. In these cases you' can > place the mark manually with \footnotemark, and later you specify the > text with \footnotetext, or in that case with \footcitetext.)
OK, I'll remove it. What about also removing \footcite altogether? We could simply automatically wrap the citation in a inline footnote before exporting the document. No need for a special command. Org already handles footnotes in headings and tables, so there may be no need to footcitetext either… > Regarding: >> | locators | bare | notecite | >> | locators | caps | Pnotecite | >> | locators | bare-caps | Notecite | >> | locators | | pnotecite | > > fnotecite should be added. Under what style/variant combination? >> 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? OK. > \cite could be [cite/bare: ...] This would be confusing. So far, "bare" is a style variant. Your suggestion promotes it exceptionally to a full-fledged style. It hurts my logic. :) Could "\cite" be [cite/parens/bare:...] instead? > 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. 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.) Users can disregard any default style chosen by the processor. If I write: #+cite_export: biblatex whatever text all [cite:...] objects will create \textcite commands, no matter what the processor thinks about it. So, an hypothetical #+cite_export: biblatex foo auto could also turn all [cite:...] into \autocite commands and the document would be portable. The default processor style for citations is to be understood as a fall-back style, not necessarily as "the style associated to [cite:...]". Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about autocite being the default. If it makes sense and we can put \cite elsewhere, let's use that. Regards,
