Am 19.05.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
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.
No, I wouldn't suggest that unless you want to deal with capitalization
at the beginning of footnotes, which \footcite does automatically.
#+begin_example
\documentclass{article}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{doe,
author = {Doe, John},
title = {On using biblatex with orgmode},
year = {2021},
}
\end{filecontents}
\usepackage[style=authortitle-ibid]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\begin{document}
Test.\footcite{doe}
Test.\footcite{doe} % "ibid." -> "Ibid."
\citereset
Test.\footnote{\cite{doe}.}
Test.\footnote{\cite{doe}.} "ibid." stays "ibid."
\end{document}
#+end_example
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?
| locators | bare | notecite |
| locators | caps | Pnotecite |
| locators | bare-caps | Notecite |
| locators | foot | fnotecite |
| locators | | pnotecite |
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?
Could be, but also [cite/text/bare] or cite/foot/bare or cite/super/bare
as they all are essentially just wrappers around the plain cite command
(textcite is a bit different, but parencite and footcite really have the
same definition as cite, the only difference being that they add some
kind of wrapper.)
So, starting from parencite and then removing the wrapper would my logic
instead ;-)
But maybe cite/plain or cite/basic or so?
By the way, I have the impression we can easily get rid of the
bare-variants completely. If we don't need footcitetext (or if we rename
the variant to note/text as that would be more appropriate, we can
something like this:
| Style | Variant | Command |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| author | caps | Citeauthor* |
| author | full | citeauthor |
| author | caps-full | Citeauthor |
| author | | citeauthor |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| title | full | citetitle* |
| title | | citetitle |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| year | full | citeyear* |
| year | | citeyear |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| locators | parens | pnotecite |
| locators | parens-caps | Pnotecite |
| locators | foot | fnotecite |
| locators | caps | Notecite |
| locators | | notecite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| nocite | | nocite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| note | text | footcitetext |
| note | | footcite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| smart | caps | Smartcite |
| smart | | smartcite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| super | | supercite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| foot | | footcite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| text | caps | Textcite |
| text | | textcite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| parens | noauthor-caps | Parencite* |
| parens | noauthor | parencite* |
| parens | caps | Parencite |
| parens | | parencite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| plain | noauthor-caps | Cite* |
| plain | noauthor | cite* |
| plain | caps | Cite |
| plain | | cite |
|-----------+---------------+--------------|
| (default) | caps | Autocite |
| (default) | | autocite |
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.
Well, see the revised table above. WDYT?
Denis
