On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:29 AM Denis Maier <denisma...@mailbox.org> wrote: > > Am 20.05.2021 um 16:11 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus: ... > > 1. I wasn't sure Nicolas was aware of this config option, nor how one > > would configure it currently (but it seems necessary in general) > > No, it's only necessary to configure this if you don't want the defaults. > > In authoryear styles you have autocite=inline by default > In authortitle styles you have autocite=inline by default > In verbose styles you have autocite=footnote by default > > So, if you use an authoryear/authortitle style, but want > autocite=footnote you'll have to declare this as a package option.
Oh good! > > 2. If you set default to autocite=inline, which is to say the > > non-bare/plain style, the issue you note goes away? > > > > Not sure. Autocite* => parencite*, but there's still no cite/bare* then. Just to clarify: There's no autocite command variant that produces the bare output? But there are other more output-specific commands that do? >From your followup to this: > Another thought here: > Yes, it could be [cite/parens/bare:...] but also [cite/note/bare:...]. Why is that necessary? If I interpreted the above correctly, is not the limitation in biblatex autocite? E.g. Nicolas could map "cite/bare" to whatever paren or note biblatex variant, depending on the citation style? > @Bruce: We don't have bare citation in CSL currently, right? Perhaps we > should add this to add some portability... No, just as we don't have (yet) in-text, but processors have implemented it. That's why I recommend on that table that citeproc-org/el supports it; it's easy enough to add. Bruce
