Dear All, I'm trying to catch up with the new developments, it isn't easy :-). I think it would be really helpful to be able to map different backends to different processors, because latex based solutions like natbib can handle only latex-based backends, so anybody who wanted to export both to latex (with a latex citation processor) and something else would need to constantly change the used citation processor. Maybe instead of a full alist mapping backends to citation processors we could have only options to declare a separate processor for latex-based backends and another for non-latex ones?
best regards, András On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 21:41, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > > "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM Timothy <tecos...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > >> > >> > I wouldn't hold my breath. > >> > > >> > First, IIUC, there's no reason to force biblatex over natbib OOTB as > >> > both are widely in use. But, more importantly, "oc-csl" require the > >> > external Citeproc library, so it cannot be loaded by default. As > >> > a consequence, no default configuration can use it. > >> > >> If you don't mind some follow-up questions. > >> + I take it that natbib is used by default for LaTeX then? Is it fairly > >> easy for the user to switch to biblatex? > >> + With citeproc, I don't suppose something could be put behind a > >> (featurep) switch to use oc-csl if citeproc is available, and fall > >> back gracefully otherwise? > > > > Not sure about generally (Nicolas can comment on that), but in this > > case, if you specify this: > > > > #+cite_export: natbib > > > > ... the export process runs through that processor, even if you are > > outputting to plain text or HTML, where natbib is not supported. > > Exactly. > > By default, no export processor is selected. All citations are removed > from output, and print_bibliography keywords, ignored. > > You have to actively select what processor you want for the document, > globally, through a variable, or with a cite_export keyword. Therefore, > the processor does not depend on the back-end used; you are supposed to > choose the one you think to be appropriate. There is no falling back > either. You get what you asked for. That's the way. > > It could be possible to change `org-cite-export-processor' so it becomes > an alist where you can associate back-ends to processors. But I can't > see how to transpose it nicely to cite_export keyword. > > I'm not convinced this would be an improvement either. For example, you > may want to use two different processors with the same back-end. >
