On Tuesday, 3 Feb 2015 at 08:27, Richard Lawrence wrote: [...]
>> For me, any solution will likely do just fine as my use of citations is >> quite straightforward. I seldom, if ever, have pre or post text but I >> do use a couple of alternative citation types (author, year; year only). > > Just to clarify: these are only `alternative' citation types if you're > not using a citation style where they are the default types, like > Chicago, right? I assume you are using a numeric style, like ACM? It depends on the journal I am writing for. For those with numeric styles (Chicago), i.e. "blah blah [1]", there are no alternatives so I just use [[cite:blah]]; for journals expecting a Harvard (natbib) style (blah, 1999), I will use both citet "Blah et al. (1999)" and citep "(Blah et al, 1999)" as appropriate. I prefer numeric styles but it's not typically up to me. Harvard styles are a throwback to typewriters (and people using Word etc. without any automated reference software ;-). IMO, of course! So there needs to be some way to distinguish between styles, as already noted I think (although much of the discussion has been about how to include extra information...). -- : Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 25.0.50.1, Org release_8.3beta-750-gb6fce5.dirty
