Rasmus writes: > Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > >> Another option is to mimic custom links, if that's what you're thinking >> of, which means to store every user-defined keyword in a variable and >> build a regexp out of it. I dislike it even more because the document is >> not portable anymore, as it requires you to share your custom keywords. > > So, the (opinionated) useful defaults in biblatex are: > cite(s), parencite(s), footcite(s), texcite(s), fullcite, > footfullcite, nocite > > Citation types for extracting parts: > citeauthor, citetitle, citeyear, citedate, citeurl,
If citenum was also in that list, then I agree. It is not that likely there is little need for custom style. > > From natbib: > citet (== textcite), citep (== parencite). > > Keys I don't care about, since they are quite biblatex specific: > smartcite, autocide, parentcite*, uppercase variants. *volcites(s) > (any objections?) None from me. > > In natbib: > citealt, citalp, starred variants > > So that's 17 support keys and two aliases. I guess this would deter most > authors from needing custom styles. > >> Note that it rules out colons from KEY syntax (but we can use another >> less common character, e.g. "|"). > > The default bibtex.el style generates keys like "%A%y:%t", so I think ":" > is no good, appealing as it is. > > —Rasmus > > > Footnotes: > ¹ which is just > [cite: common pre; pre1 @k1 post1; ⋯; preN @kN postN; common post] -- Professor John Kitchin Doherty Hall A207F Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-7803 @johnkitchin http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
