Thanks for your answer on that everybody. My apologies for my poor grammar asking where "people discuss such questions in real life". What I really had wanted to say, what I meant, was that I was wondering what professions utilize such workflows and where they discuss it primarily because the topic does go beyond LaTeX alone. My usage of such a workflow is pretty lightweight, and I've never had anyone to talk to about it because in my field generally no one cites their references. Grant Rettke | ACM, ASA, FSF, IEEE, SIAM g...@wisdomandwonder.com | http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/ “Wisdom begins in wonder.” --Socrates ((λ (x) (x x)) (λ (x) (x x))) “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” --Thompson
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Matt Lundin <m...@imapmail.org> wrote: > Grant Rettke <g...@wisdomandwonder.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Matt Lundin <m...@imapmail.org> wrote: >>> I think the key in any possible feature merge is to remember citation >>> management is idiosyncratic. >> >> Off topic: >> >> How do people choose today? >> >> Why choose bibtex over biblatex? > > Thanks to inertia, bibtex still has a number of users in the sciences, > since it was originally designed for scientific citations. In the > humanities, however, bibtex is a non-starter, since biblatex offers much > more flexibility. The good news is that bibtex and biblatex use the same > database format, so it's easy to transition from bibtex to biblatex. > However, there are other options, such as CSL.[1] > >> Where do people discuss such questions like this in real life? > > I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you clarify? > > I simply meant that everyone will have a different workflow/system for > storing and managing citations. E.g., some will prefer to store > bibliographical data in a zotero database, others in a single bib file, > others in multiple bib files, others as properties in org headlines, > etc. > > I think one can make a conception distinction here between citation > management (i.e., how one stores bibliographical data) and citation > processing (i.e., the software one uses to export that data to some > output format). There are many, many formats (mods, bib, etc.) and tools > (biber, bibtex, csl/citeproc, etc.) for formatting bibliographical data. > > In an ideal world, one should be able to 1) process bibliographical data > from multiple formats; 2) choose from hundreds of citation styles; and > 3) format citations for multiple backends. I am not suggesting that > org-mode should directly support all these things, but its default > methods of handling citations should not get in the way of using > external tools that provide such flexibility. > > For instance, pandoc (an immensely impressive piece of software!) > accepts bibliographical data from numerous sources and processes it for > multiple outputs (html, plain text, docx, rtf, etc.). By contrast, > ox-bibtex.el runs citations through bibtex2html, which is pretty much > limited to the "old-fashioned" bibtex formats. Ironically, ox-bibtex.el > invokes pandoc to convert from html to plain text, but only after it has > already used bibtex2html to process the data. > > Best, > Matt > > Footnotes: > > [1] Citation Style Language - http://citationstyles.org/
